What is Style and Stylistics

7/30/2019 What is Style and Stylistics

1/160

WHAT IS STYLE AND STYLISTICS?

What is meant by style is debatable because it is highly debatable if human beings are exactly alike. It is

very difficult to arrive at a full description of style that is acceptable to all scholars. As such there are

many definitions of the word style as there are scholars yet no consensus is reached among them on

what style is. Chapman (1973) is of the view that style is the product of social situation i.e. of a common

relationship between language users. He further said that style is not an ornament or virtue and is notconfined to written language, or to literature or to any single aspect of language.

Language is human specific and used in society. No human language is fixed, uniform, or varying; all

languages show internal variation. This variation sows the distinct feature of individuals or a group of

people which is usually referred to as style. Style is popularly referred to as dress of thought, as a

persons method of expressing his thought feelings and emotions, as the manner of speech or

writing.(Samson:1996). From the definition above, one can deduce that style is the particular way in

which an individual communicate his thoughts which distinguishes him from others.

Style can also be defined as the variation in an individuals speech which is occasioned by the situation

of use. (Yule: 1996) from the definition of style provided by Yule, style is described as the variations in

language usage. In essence, style is conditioned by the manner in which an individual makes use of

language

Middleton is of the view that style refers to personal idiosyncrasy, the technique of exposition and

Chatman says that style means manner the manner in which the form executed or the content

expressed. From the definitions above, it can be deduced that style is unique to every individual or

person and it is a product of the function of language as a means of communication.

Stylistics, sometimes called l i n g u o - s t y 1 i s t i c s, is a branch of general linguistics. It has now been

more or less definitely outlined. It deals mainly with two interdependent tasks: a) the investi-gation of

the inventory of special language media which by their ontol-ogical features secure the desirable effect

of the utterance and b) certain types of texts (discourse) which due to the choice and arrangement of

language means are distinguished by the pragmatic aspect of the communication. The two obiectives of

stylistics are clearly discernible as two separate fields of investigation. The inventory of special language

media can be analysed and their ontological features revealed if presented in a system in which the co-

relation between the media becomes evident. The types of texts can be analysed if their linguistic

components are presented in their interaction, thus revealing the unbreakable unity and transparencyof constructions of a given type. The types of texts that are distinguished by the pragmatic aspect of the

communication are called functional styles of language (FS); the special media of language which secure

the desirable effect of the utterance are called stylistic devices (SD) and expressive means (EM).

The first field of investigation, i.e. SDs and EMs, necessarily touches upon such general language

problems as the aesthetic function of lan-guage, synonymous ways of rendering one and the same idea,

emotional colouring in languge,_the interrelation between language and thought, the individual manner


2/160

of an author in making use of language and a number of other issues.

The second field, i.e. functional styles, cannot avoid discussion of such most general linguistic issues as

oral and written varieties of lan-guage, the notion of the literary (standard) language, the constituents of

texts larger than the sentence, the generative...[continues]

Literary Theory and Criticism

(Russian, literaturovedenie), the study of literature, its origin, nature, and development.

Subject and disciplines. Contemporary literary theory and criticism encompasses a complex and

changing group of disciplines. There are three main areas of study: literary theory, the history of

literature, and literary criticism in the strict sense (literaturnaia kritika). The theory of literatureinvestigates the general laws of the structure and development of literature. The history of

literature studies the literary past as a process or one of the stages of this process. Literary

criticism is concerned with the most recent, the present state of literature. It also interprets theliterature of the past from the standpoint of modern social and artistic aims. Literary criticism inthe strict sense is not universally accepted as being part of the scholarly discipline of literary

theory and criticism.

The most important part of literary theory and criticism is poetics, the study of the structure of

individual works and groups of works, for example, all the works of a particular writer or theworks of a literary school or epoch. Poetics may be related to each of the major areas of literary

theory and criticism. In literary theory it provides knowledge of the structure of any literary work

(general poetics). Within the scope of literary history, historical poetics investigates the

development of artistic structures and their elements, such as genres, plots, and stylistic images.

The principles of poetics may also be applied in criticism in the strict sense. Stylistics occupies asimilar position in literary theory and criticism. Stylistics may be included in literary theory as

part of general poetics; here stylistics is the study of one level of the structure, the stylistic andlanguage level. In literary history stylistics treats the language and style of a particular current or

school. The stylistic study of contemporary works has almost always been one of the chief

functions of literary criticism in the strict sense.

The three spheres of literary theory and criticism are closely related. Criticism, for example, is

dependent on information derived from literary history and theory, which in turn take intoaccount and reveal the significance of criticism. Moreover, secondary disciplines have arisen inliterary theory and criticism, such as the theory and history of criticism in the strict sense, the

history of poetics (as opposed to historical poetics), and the theory of the stylistics of artistic

language. The various disciplines within literary theory and criticism also shift from one level to

another: thus, criticism becomes material for the history of literature, for historical poetics, andfor other studies. In addition to the principal disciplines already mentioned, there are many

auxiliary disciplines, such as the study of archives relating to literary theory and criticism, the

compilation of bibliographies of literature and criticism, heuristics, paleography, textual criticismand commentary, and the theory and practice of publishing. In the mid-20th century

mathematical methods, especially those of statistics, were widely adopted in literary theory and
http://www.studymode.com/join.phphttp://www.studymode.com/join.phphttp://www.studymode.com/join.phphttp://www.studymode.com/join.php


3/160

criticism, primarily in prosody, stylistics, textual criticism, and folklore study, where quantifiable

structural segments can be isolated more easily. The auxiliary disciplines are an indispensable

foundation for the primary disciplines. As they develop and grow increasingly complex,however, they may set independent scholarly goals and acquire independent cultural functions.

Literary theory and criticism is in many ways linked to the humanities, some of which(philosophy, aesthetics) serve as its methodological basis; other branches of the humanities

resemble literary theory and criticism in their goals and subject of investigation (folklore studies,

art studies) or are related by a general humanistic orientation (history, psychology, sociology).The many links between literary theory and criticism and linguistics are based not only on

common material (language as a means of communication and as the raw material of literature)

but also on the contiguity of the epistemological functions of words and images and on an

analogy between the structure of words and images. The close relation between literary theoryand criticism and the other humanities was formerly reflected in the concept of philology as a

synthesizing branch of learning, studying culture in all its written manifestations, including

literary works. In the mid-20th century the concept of philology suggests the affinity between

literary theory and criticism and linguistics; in the strict sense philology denotes textual criticism.

History of schools and trends. Literary theory and criticism originated in early antiquity in theform of mythological concepts, for example, the reflection in myths of the classical

differentiation between the arts. Judgments about art are found in such ancient works as the

Indian Vedas (tenth to second centuries B.C.), the ChineseBook of Legends (Shu Ching, 12th to

fifth centuries B.C.), and the ancient GreekIliadand Odyssey (eighth and seventh centuries B.C.).

In Europe the first concepts of art and literature were developed by the ancient thinkers. Plato

dealt with aesthetic problems, including that of the beautiful, from the standpoint of objectiveidealism and examined the epistemological nature and educational function of art. He also

contributed to the theory of art and literature, classifying literature as epic, lyric, or dramatic.Although Aristotles worksPoetics, Rhetoric, andMetaphysics preserve the general aestheticapproach to art, they introduce several disciplines of literary study, including the theory of

literature, stylistics, and especially poetics. AristotlesPoetics, containing the first systematicexposition of the fundamentals of poetics, initiated a long tradition of treatises on poetics. Astime passed, however, these works became more normative, for example, HoracesArt of Poetry.Along with classical poetics there developed rhetoric, initially the study of oratory and prose in

general, for example, AristotlesRhetoric,the works of Isocrates and Cicero, and QuintiliansThe Training of an Orator. The theory of prose and stylistics developed within the framework ofrhetoric. The writing of treatises on rhetoric, as well as poetics, continued into modern times; in

Russia M. V. Lomonosov published his Short Manual on Eloquence in 1748. Criticism in the

strict sense also arose in Europe in antiquity, as may be seen from the early philosophersopinions about Homer and the comparison of the tragedies of Aeschylus and Euripides inAristophanes comedy The Frogs (405 B.C.). Initially, criticism was inseparable not only fromother areas of literary study but from art as a whole.

Significant differentiation in literary theory and criticism occurred in the Hellenistic age. During

the period of Alexandrian philology (third and second centuries B.C.) literary theory and

criticism, along with other studies, broke away from philosophy and formed its own disciplines,


4/160

including biobibliography (the Tablets of Callimachus, the prototype of the literary

encyclopedia), textual criticism to determine the authenticity of a text, and textual commentary

and the publication of texts (Zenodotus of Ephesus, Aristophanes of Byzantium, and laterAristarchus of Samothrace). Later, comparative historical studies arose, for example,

comparisons of classical works from the standpoint of the sublime and the beginning of the

section entitled Being in the treatise On the Sublime, written in the first century A.D. by anunidentified author known as Pseudo-Lon-ginus.

Profound concepts of art and literature also developed in the Oriental countries in ancient times.In China the doctrine of the social and educational function of art evolved within Confucianism

(Hsiin-tsu, c. 298238 B.C.). The Taoist school developed an aesthetic theory of the beautiful inconformity with Tao, the universal creative principle (Lao-tzu, sixth and fifth centuries B.C.). In

India problems of artistic structure were worked out in relation to theories of the psychologicalperception of art, called rasa (inBharatas Natyasastra, c. fourth century and later treatises), andtheories ofdhvani,the hidden meaning of works of art (in AnandavardhanasDhvanyaloka,ninth century). Primary attention was given to style, that is, to the linguistic realization of artistic

effects. In the Oriental countries general theoretical and aesthetic methods (alongside textualanalysis and bibliographic work) predominated for many centuries. Research on the historical

and evolutionary plane appeared only in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Byzantium and the Latin works of the Western European peoples were the links between ancient

and modern literary theory and criticism. Stimulated by the study and collection of ancient

works, literary study in Byzantium was primarily concerned with biobibliography andcommentary. Important Byzantine works included one of the first European encyclopedic

collections of literary works, PhotiusMyriobiblon (ninth century), containing paraphrases andevaluations of literary works; Suidas biographic dictionary of ancient authors (c. tenth century);commentaries on Homer, Pindar, and other authors by Johannes Tzetzes (12th century) and

Eustathius of Thessalonica (12th century); and a treatise on rhetoric by Michael Psellus (11th

century). In Latin works, philological study stressed the writing of compendiums and textbooks

on rhetoric. At the same time, within a theological framework and often assimilatingNeoplatonism and Aristotelianism, the philosophical and epistemological principles of literary

theory and criticism were developed by St. Augustine in the fourth and fifth centuries and St.

Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.

The Renaissance stimulated the creation of original poetics adapted to local and national

conditions. The problem of language, extending beyond stylistics and rhetoric, became thegeneral theoretical problem of establishing modern European languages as legitimate material of

poetry. Important works on this subject include Dantes treatise On Popular Speech (130407)and Du BellaysDefense and Illustration of the French Language (1549). The right of literarytheory and criticism to deal with contemporary artistic phenomena was affirmed in Boccaccioslectures on theDivine Comedy and his biography The Life of Dante Alighieri (c. 1360). The

moral significance of contemporary literature was the subject of the Englishman P. SidneysDefense of Poesie written in 1583. But inasmuch as modern literary theory and criticism wasdeveloping out of the discovery of antiquity, the Renaissance faced the problem of originalityin its full force. Solutions to this problem ranged from attempts to adapt elements of classical

poetics to modern literature (the application of the norms of the Aristotelian theory of drama to


5/160

the epic in T. TassosDiscourse on the Art of Poetry, 1587) to the rejection of classicalauthorities (F. Patrizis On Poetry,1586). The view of the classical genres as eternal canonscoexisted with the sense of dynamism and incompleteness that was characteristic of theRenaissance. The prevailing tripartite division of mans history into antiquity, the Middle Ages,and the Renaissance (the term was first used by G. Vasari in his Lives, 1550) anticipated G.

Vicos theory of cycles and the doctrine of stages of cultural development expressed by theromantics and found in the dialectical philosophical systems of the late 18th and early 19thcenturies.

Beginning in the late 16th century and especially in the age of classicism, the trend toward

systematizing artistic laws became more pronounced, and the normative and pragmatic character

of artistic theory was emphasized. In hisArt of Poetry (1674), N. Boileau relegated general

epistemological and aesthetic problems to the background and concentrated on constructing aharmonious poetics imbued with Cartesianism and conceived as a system of genre, stylistic, and

linguistic norms. The exclusive and obligatory nature of Boileaus norms made his treatise andsuch related works as J. C. GottschedsExperiment With a Critical Poetics for Germans (1730)

and A. P. SumarokovsEpistle on Versification (1748) literary codes. Rationalism alsostimulated attempts to achieve a deductive knowledge of art and to reduce all its elements toone principle, for example, imitation (C. Batteuxs The Fine Arts Reduced to One GeneralPrinciple, 1746).

However, the 17th and 18th centuries also saw a strong trend opposing the normative approach

to literary types and genres. In defending the mixing of genres S. Johnson pointed toShakespeares works in hisLives of the Most Outstanding English Poets (17791781). D.Diderot advocated middle-class drama, a genre between tragedy and comedy. Finally, with E.

Joung (Description of Original Works, 1759) and G. E. Lessing (Hamburg Dramaturgy, 176769), this tendency grew into an attack on all normative poetics, thus opening the way for the

aesthetic and literary theories of the romantics. During the Enlightenment attempts were also

made to explain the development of literature in terms of local conditions, particularly

environment and climate (J. Dubos, Critical Reflections on Poetry and Painting, 1719; writingsof Montesquieu and J. J. Winckelmann), which anticipated the later theories of determinism. In

the 18th century the first courses in literary history were given, notably G. TiraboschisHistoryof Italian Literature (177282), T. War-tonsHistory of English Poetry (177481), and J. LaHarpesLyceum, or Course in Ancient and Modern Literature (17991805), based on a historicalconsideration of the types of poetry.

It is more difficult to date the appearance of literary criticism in the strict sense, which evolved in

the course of more than a century, from F. Malherbe, Boileau, and J. Dryden (whom S. Johnson

called the father of English criticism) to Lessing, Diderot, J. Marmontel, and N. M. Karamzin,

who was the first Russian to include in his magazine a substantial section devoted to criticismand bibliography.

In the late 18th century an important change occurred in European literary thought, shaking thestable hierarchy of artistic values. The inclusion of folklore in the scholarly study of medieval

European and Oriental literatures cast doubt on the validity of models, whether classical or

Renaissance. There developed a strong sense of the intrinsic merit of artistic criteria of different


6/160

ages which ought not to be compared. This attitude was best expressed by J. G. Herder in his

Shakespeare (1773) andIdeas Toward a Philosophy of Human History (178491). The categoryof the unique came to denote the literature of a given people or period, possessing its ownmeasure of perfection. Following J. Hamann in studying the Eastern sources of classical Greek

literature and approaching the Bible as an artistic work of a particular age, Herder created the

preconditions for the comparative historical method.

The romantic view that different criteria existed developed into the concept of different cultural

periods expressing the spirit of a particular people or era. Adhering to the classification of artforms proposed by J. F. Schiller(On Nave and Sentimental Poetry, 1795), the romantics drew a

distinction between classical (ancient) and modern (Christian) art forms. Recognizing the

impossibility of restoring the classical form, the romantics stressed the endless mutability and

capacity for renewal of art (F. Schlegel,Fragments, 1798). A. Schlegel applied this idea toliterary history in his Berlin lectures on literature and art (180103) and hisLectures onDramatic Art and Literature (180911).

However, in establishing modern art as romantic, as imbued with the Christian symbolism of thespiritual and infinite, the romantics imperceptibly, and despite the dialectical tone of their

doctrine, restored the category of model (historically medieval art and regionally Oriental art). Atthe same time, in the idealist philosophical systems, culminating in Hegels philosophy, the ideaof the development of art was embodied in a phenomenology of artistic forms dialectically

replacing each other (Hegels symbolic, classical, and romantic forms). The nature of theaesthetic and the distinction between it and the moral and cognitive were establishedphilosophically by I. Kant. The inexhaustible, symbolic nature of the artistic image wasexpounded in philosophical terms by F. Schelling. Another important aspect of Hegelsphilosophy was the right of mediated (discursive-scientific) knowledge to judge artistic

phenomena since art is not so disorderly that it could not lend itself to philosophicalelucidation (Estetika, vol. 1, Moscow, 1968, p. 19); this view stood in opposition to theintuitivist tendencies that prevailed among the romantics.

The philosophical period of literary theory and criticism was a time of large-scale systems

conceived as universal knowledge of art (and, more broadly, of all existence), which crushedbeneath them the history of literature, poetics, and stylistics. The most important aspect of the

speculative edifice was the conception of theory as knowledge of the laws of development of the

concrete. As a result, the historical aspect of literary theory and criticism often coincided with

the theoretical aspect, as N. Stan-kevich noted in his comment about Hegel: The history of art,considered rationally, is also the theory of art (Stikhotvoreniia, Tragediia, Proza, Moscow,1890, p. 179).

A school of philosophical criticism represented by D. V. Venevitinov, N. I. Nadezhdin, and tosome extent V. G. Belinskii, arose in Russia in the 1820s and 1830s, influenced by andgrowing out of German philosophical systems. The school also asserted the distinctive nature of

art and its changing forms, but in response to the vital needs of Russian literature, it devotedspecial attention to working out the new, realistic form. In the 1840s, after passing through aphilosophical aesthetics phase, Belinskii related this aesthetics to his conception of the civic

function of art and to historicism (social preoccupation) in an original manner. His series of


7/160

articles on A. S. Pushkin (184346) was essentially the first course devoted to the history ofcontemporary Russian literature. Belinskii linked his explanation of past phenomena to

theoretical problems of realism in art. Despite the differentiation of disciplines that had occurred,the chief form of literary study in Russia (in contrast to Western Europe) and the one which was

developing the richest content and incorporating the other branches of learning was precisely

philosophical criticism. As N. G. Chernyshevskii noted later, people who were engaged inaesthetic criticism . . . also did a great deal for the history of literature (Poln. sobr. soch. vol. 2,1949, p. 264).

In the first quarter of the 19th century the scope of literary study expanded in the European

countries. Many new courses were offered in literary history, notably those of F. Bouterwek in

Germany, L. S. Sismondi in Switzerland, and A. Villemin in France. Disciplines arose that

studied all aspects of the culture of a particular ethnic group, for example, the Slavic studies of J.Dobrovsk, J. Kollr, and P. afaik. With the growing interest in literary history, attentionshifted from great masters to the entire body of artistic facts and from world literature to the

students own national literature, for example, G. G. GervinusHistory of the Poetic National

Literature of the Germans (183542). In Russian literary studies the place of ancient Russianliterature was affirmed; philosophical criticism had not viewed ancient Russian literature asbeing part of the mainstream of European literary development and had therefore excluded itfrom its aesthetic system. A greater interest in pre-Petrine literature was shown in M. A.MaksimovichsHistory of Ancient Russian Literature(1839), A. V. NikitenkosEssay on theHistory of Russian Literature(1845), and especially S. P. ShevyrevsHistory of RussianLiterature, Primarily Ancient(1846).

Several methodological schools arose in Europe, cutting across national boundaries. Among the

first was the mythological school (its philosophical basis was the works on aesthetics of F.Schelling and the Schlegel brothers). Interest in mythology and folklore symbolism, which had

been stimulated by romanticism (F. Creuzers The Symbolism and Mythology of the AncientPeoples, Particularly the Greeks, 181012), grew among German mythologists, who discernedan Aryan protomythology (J. Grimm, German Mythology, 1835). The common features ofprimitive thought as recorded in language and legend were studied. In Russia the mythologist F.

I. Buslaev did not restrict himself to studying mythology but traced its historical course,

including the interaction of folk poetry and written works. Later the young mythologistsM.Mller in England, W. Schwartz in Germany, and A. N. Afanasev in Russiaposed theproblem of the sources of myth.

Under the influence of another aspect of romantic theorythe view that art was the self-expression of the creative spiritthe biographical method took shape (C. A. Sainte-Beuve,Literary-critical Portraits, vols. 15, 183639). To some extent the biographical approach wasincluded in all modern literary study, sometimes resembling the method of cultural history and atother times becoming frank impressionism. The biographical method also paved the way for the

psychological theories of creativity of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

In the second half of the 19th century the school of cultural history became prominent. It had

evolved under the influence of many factors, including the deterministic trends in literary theory

and criticism in the preceding century, the romantic interest in national and local color, and


8/160

French historical science (F. Guizot, A. Thierry, and F. O. Mignet). Impressed by the successes

of the natural sciences, the school of cultural history attempted to reduce causality and

determinism in literary study to precise, tangible factors, such as H. Taines triune of race,milieu, and moment (History of English Literature, 186364). The traditions of this school weredeveloped by De Sanctis (History of Italian Literature, 1870), W. Scherer(History of German

Literature, 188083), and M. Melndez y Pelayo (History of Aesthetic Ideas in Spain, 188391).In Russia its adherents included N. S. Tikhonravov, A. N. Pypin, and N. I. Storozhenko. As thecultural history method developed, it not only underrated the artistic nature of literature, which

was regarded primarily as a social document, but also revealed strong positivist tendencies that

ignored the dialectical method and aesthetic criteria.

In Russian literary theory and criticism the positivist tendencies were opposed by revolutionary-

democratic criticism. Drawing on Belinskiis legacy, revolutionary-democratic criticismattempted to restore the broad philosophical and epistemological context of literary research: Ifit is important to collect and study facts, it is equally important to try to grasp their meaning. . . .

Thus, the question of what is art and what is poetry cannot but be extremely important (N. G.

Chernyshevskii,Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 2, 1949, p. 6). Asserting the cognitive functions of art, therevolutionary democrats noted that works of art also often serve to pass judgment on variousaspects of life (ibid.,p. 92). N. A. Dobroliubov propounded the concept of realistic criticism,whose main principle was the analysis of a literary work, insofar as it was true to life, as aphenomenon of life in order to explain to the reader the spirit and problems of the times. In

treating problems of the history of literature and criticism in the strict sense, the revolutionary

democrats emphasized the link between the literary process and the social struggle, theinteraction and opposition of different social groups, and the progress of the liberation movement

(ChernyshevskiisEssays on the Gogol Period in Russian Literature, 185556; DobroliubovsOn the Degree of Participation of Folk Character in the Development of Russian Literature,

1858).

In the mid-1840s, the study of folklore and ancient literature gave rise to the comparativehistorical method. Pypin came close to this method in hisEssay on the Literary History of OldRussian Stories and Fairy Tales (1857). Later, T. Benfey (Panchatantra, 1859) proposed the

migration theory, attributing the similarity of plots of folk tales not to the common origin of

peoples, but to later contacts among peoples and the migration of plots from India. Benfeystheory stimulated both the historical approach to links among peoples and an interest in such

purely poetic elements as plots and characters. However, the theory did not investigate the

genesis of the poetic elements and often resulted in random and superficial comparisons. Parallelto the comparative historical school and correcting and elaborating its conclusions, there arose

theories attributing the similarity of poetic forms to the uniformity of the human psyche (the

ethnopsy-chology school of H. Steinthal and M. Lazarus) and to the animism common to all

primitive peoples (E. B. Tylor). These theories in turn became the basis for the Scottish scholarA. Langs theory of the spontaneous origin of plots, known as the anthropological theory.

The scholarly work of A. N. Veselovskii was based on the mingling of many 19th-centurymethodological traditions. Adopting the mythologists theory of the myth as the primary form ofartistic creation, Veselovskii directed his investigations to concrete comparisons in literary

history. Unlike the migration school, however, he raised the question of the preconditions for


9/160

borrowing, the problem of countercurrents in the literature experiencing the influence. Despitethe positivistic tinge of his initial position, Veselovskii opened the way for historical-genetic

studies of artistic forms. In hisHistorical Poetics,explaining the essence of poetry based on itshistory, Veselovskiiturned to historical reality and investigated the emotional experience ofpoetic imagery and the forms expressing it (Istoricheskaia po-etika, 1940, pp. 5354). Thus, the

subject of historical poetics was established as the study of the development of poetic forms andof the laws by which a particular social content is embodied in certain inevitable poetic forms,such as genre, epithet, or plot. A. A. Potebnia approached the problem of imagery from another

angle, from the standpoint of the structure of the work of art as a whole (From Lectures on the

Theory of Literature, 1894;From Notes on the Theory of Literature,1905). Potebnias study ofthe analogy between words and images with respect to their social applications substantiatesthe ambiguity of the artistic work, which seems to contain a multiplicity of meanings, and

reveals the images infinite capacity for renewal in the course of its historical life and thecreative role of the reader in this change. Potebnias idea of the inner form of the wordstimulated the dialectical study of the problem of the artistic image and anticipated the later

study of poetic structure in relation to its function.

In the last third of the 19th century the method of cultural history was further developed in

Western European literary studies through the comparative historical and, especially, thepsychological approach (the Frenchman E. Hennequins Scholarly Criticism,1888; G. BrandesPrincipal Currents in Nineteenth-century European Literature, 187390). Representatives of thepsychological school included W. Wundt, J. Volkelt, R. Mller-Freienfels, Potebnia (to some

extent), and D. N. Ov-sianiko-Kulikovskii. The emphasis on comparative historical studies led tothe creation of a special discipline, comparative literary theory and criticism (F. Baldensperger

and P. Van Tieghem in France). The development of literary theory and criticism became

worldwide, breaking down age-old barriers between East and West. The first histories of national

literatures appeared in the Oriental countries, notably Haga Yaichis Ten Lectures on JapaneseLiterature(1899) and, somewhat later, histories of Indian literature and Lu Hsins Short Historyof Chinese Prose (1923). This period saw the evolution of systematic literary criticism in the

strict sense.

At the turn of the 20th century an antipositivist trend based on idealist premises arose in Western

literary theory and criticism. It assumed three principal forms. First, mediated, intellectualknowledge was disparaged in favor of intuitive knowledge as applied to both the creative act and

to judgments about art (H. BergsonsLaughter, 1900). There were attempts not only to reject thesystem of traditional literary categories (types of poetry, genres) but also to prove that they werefundamentally inapplicable to art. In hisAesthetics (1902), B. Croce stated that all traditional

classifications and poetic terminology determined only the external structure of a work, not its

artistic value. In bringing intuition into conflict with reason and conceptual judgment, the

intuitionists also questioned the scholarly validity of literary theory and criticism.

Second, efforts were made to overcome the superficial determinism of the cultural history school

and to construct a classification of literature based on deep-rooted psychological and intellectualdistinctions. Such was F. Nietzsches polarity of artistic types, derived from the classical godsApollo and Dionysus: the plastic and musical, the contemplative, mental, form-creating principle

as opposed to vital, emotional-aesthetic, turbulent, and at the same time tragic elements (The


10/160

Birth of Tragedy From the Spirit of Music, 1872). Strongly influencing bourgeois and,

especially, decadent aesthetics were the late Nietzsches irrationalism, his tragic relativismdenying social and historical progress, and his antirealist notion of myth-creation in art. TheGeistesgeschichte, or cultural-philosophical, school attempted to explain art in terms of deep-

seated processes, above all the merging of the epoch (the historical spirit) and the psychic

(the spiritual integrity of the individual). W. Dilthey, the leading representative ofGeistesgeschichte posited three basic types of world view and artistic activity (positivists,objective idealists, and dualists). Rendering more concrete the philosophical approach to art, R.

Unger considered general philosophical problems to be of lesser importance than such specific

problems as fate, freedom and necessity, spirit and nature, and love and death (PhilosophicalProblems in Recent Literary Studies,1908). Asserting the primacy of emotional experience (asa unity of the psychic and the historical) in literature and its link with the world view of anepoch, the Geistesgeschichte school ignored the social and class aspects of emotional experience.

In developing the principle of histori-cism with respect to the alternation of artistic styles andforms, the school avoided explaining the lawlike regularities of the historical process and tended

toward irrationalism and skepticism. It also minimized the importance of artistic structure since

art was dissolved in the general world view of an epoch.

Greater attention to form was shown in H. Wlfflins theory of the structural differences betweenthe art of the Renaissance and of the baroque (Principles of Art History, 1915), which wassubsequently applied to literature by the German theoretician O. Walzel. A shortcoming of this

approach was its tendency toward rigid classification, reducing the diversity of literature to one

of two forms and exaggerating the spontaneous development of artistic forms.

The third manifestation of the antipositivist tendencies was psychoanalysis (S. Freud), which

introduced the unconscious into explanations of art. The of Freudian psychoanalysis yielded

meager results, such as explaining an artists entire creative work in terms of an Oedipuscomplex. Moreover, the psychoanalytic approach completely ignored social and ideologicalfactors in literature. Applying psychoanalytic principles to art in a different manner, C. G. Jung

formulated his theory of the collective unconscious (archetypes) in On the Relationship BetweenAnalytical Psychology and the Literary Work, (1922).

The ritual-mythological school (N. Frye, M. Bodkin) developed under the influence of Jungsanalytical psychology and the ritual-mythological approach to the study of ancient cultures,

represented by R. Smith and especially J. Frazer and his followers, the Cambridge school. The

exponents of the ritual-mythological approach attempted to identify certain rituals andarchetypes of the collective unconscious in the works of all ages, for example, initiation rituals

corresponding to the psychological archetypes of birth and death. Similar views were held by E.

Bjork in the United States, who attributed the symbolic effect of artistic works to magic rituals.

Ritual-mythological criticism promotes study of genres and poetic devices (metaphors, symbols),but in its subordination of literature to myth and ritual, it submerges literary study beneath

ethnology and psychoanalysis.

Currents based on existential philosophy occupied a special place in Western literary studies.

Attempting to refute the view of history as a phenomenological process, these currents

introduced the concept of existential time, to which great works of art correspond (M. Heidegger,


11/160

The Origin of the Work of Art, 1935). E. Staiger made time the cornerstone of his classification

of artistic styles and types of poetry, in which lyric, epic, and dramatic poetry express,

respectively, the past, present, and future (Principles of Poetics, 1946; The Transformation of

Style, 1963). Treating poetic works as self-sufficient, self-contained truth and prophesy, theexistential interpretation avoids the traditional genetic approach and removes the work from its

social and historical context.

In the 1920s the formalist school emerged in Russia, reacting against intuitionism andbiographic impressionism and against the methods that ignored the distinctive features of art (theschool of cultural history). The formalists attempted to transcend the dualism of form and

content by proposing a new interrelationship, that of material (something antecedent to the artist)

and form (the arrangement of material in the work). Thus they expanded the concept of form,

previously reduced to style or randomly chosen elements, to include the arrangement of artisticmaterial as a whole. Such a view of form, however, left no room in the analysis and conception

of art for epistemological and philosophical interpretations of art or for social interpretation of

artistic phenomena. Through the Prague linguistic circle the formalist school had a significant

influence on literary theory and criticism throughout the world, particularly on the newcriticism and on structuralism, both of which also subscribed to T. S. Eliots ideas.

Alongside the further formalization and supplanting of epistemological and aesthetic aspects,

there were attempts to bridge the dichotomy of form and content, unresolved by the formalist

method, with its neopositivist methodology. First, the artistic work was viewed as a complex

system of levels including elements of both content and form (R. Ingarden). Second, attemptswere made to create a system of systems, that is, principles of interrelationship between theliterary and other levels. C. Lvi-Strauss and J. Mukaovsk studied the function of form. In the1960s there also emerged the sociological approach of L. Gold-mann and P. Macherey, reactingagainst formalist methods and subjective tendencies. Many of the exponents of this approach

related literary phenomena directly to socioeconomic factors.

In general, contemporary literary theory and criticism has failed to resolve such key problems as

literatures relation to public life and the interrelationship between artistic form and content.Contemporary schools of literary theory and criticism in the West include the existential, thesociological, the ritual-mythological, and the structuralist. The various approaches both converge

and conflict with one another; for example, the sociological approach tends toward both

structuralism and existentialism.

Marxist-Leninist literary studies represented a new stage in the history of modern literary theory

and criticism. In accordance with their doctrine of dialectical and historical materialism, Marx

and Engels described the basic problems of aesthetics and art. In the Marxist view of art, thecrucial factor is the tenet of historical materialism that states that the mode ofproduction ofmaterial life determines the social, political, and intellectual processes of life in general (K.Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 13, p. 7). Like the entire intellectual process of life,

aesthetic notions, literature, and art are considered by historical materialism to be the idealsuperstructure above the real economic base of society (F. Engels, ibid., vol. 20, p. 90). Thedevelopment of aesthetic ideals cannot be considered apart from the life of society as a whole, as

an independent sphere obeying only its internal laws. The development of aesthetic ideals is


12/160

ultimately determined in the same manner as are all other aspects of the life of societyby thedevelopment of material production and by the resulting production relations. However, Marx

noted that artistic flowering and the development of societys material base by no meanscorrespond to one another (ibid., vol. 12, p. 736). Whether a social system favors or hindersartistic development, the direction taken by artistic development, and the predominance of

particular forms and genresall are determined not merely by the level of the material base ofan epoch but above all by the nature of the epochs characteristic social relations: class ornonclass, antagonistic or nonantagonistic, and conducive or hostile to fostering mansindividuality. Marx and Engels also concluded that capitalist production is inimical to art and

poetry.

Among works influenced by Marx and Engels were F. Mehrings The Legend of Lessing(1893)and P. Lafargues The Origin of Romanticism (188596). Marxist study of literature wasfruitfully developed in Russia by G. V. Plekhanov, V. V. Vorovskii, and A. V. Lunacharskii.

Plekhanovs writings on literature include Unaddressed Letters (18991900), articles on V. G.Belinskii and N. G. Chernyshevskii, The Proletarian Movement and Bourgeois Art(1905), and

Art and Public Life (191213). Vorovskii is noted for his articles on the revolutionary democrats,M. Gorky, and the decadents; among Lunacharskiis works areMarxism and Aesthetics:Dialogue on Art(1905) and Critical and Polemic Studies (1905). Interpreting art from the pointof view of historical materialism, Marxist literary study from the outset criticized not onlypositivist (naturalistic) and subjective-idealist trends in modern literary theory and criticism but

also the formalistic and antirealistic aesthetic notions of the decadents. However, as historians of

culture and sociologists of art, Plekhanov, Mehring, and Lafargue borrowed extensively from thecultural history school, adopting the idea that literature is linked to social psychology, which they

interpreted from the point of view of the mutual relations and mutual influence of socialclasses (G. V. Plekhanov, A. I. Herzen and Serfdom,Izbr. filosofskie proizv., vol. 4, 1958, p.608).

In the second decade of the 20th century, vulgar sociologism developed under the influence of

the sociological interpretation of literature. It grew out of a one-sided and incomplete conceptionof Marxist sociology and became influential in Soviet literary studies in the 1920s and 1930s.Opposing vulgar sociologism, Marxist literary theory and criticism demonstrated not only the

distinctive nature of art and the laws of its development but also the dialectical conception of thesocial and historical causality of art and its social function. Fundamental to the Marxist position

was the tenet that only in the final analysis does the economic base determine the phenomenaof intellectual life and that this determining trend can be discerned only as the most generalresultant of a parallelogram formed by the stress of social forces and influences moving indifferent directions, not as a mechanical cause-effect link. Equally basic was the thesis of the

relative independence of ideology.

Lenins In Memory of Herzen (1912) and his articles on L. N. Tolstoy (190811) becamevivid examples as well as methodological keys for the dialectical materialist interpretation of the

social causality of art and for the struggle against vulgar sociologism. Lenins articlesemphasized the objective importance of the writers works in the class struggle and offeredmodels for the critical study of literature in relation to its epoch. In Leo Tolstoy as the Mirror ofthe Russian Revolution (1908), Lenin wrote: To identify the great artist with the revolution


13/160

which he has obviously failed to understand, and from which he obviously stands aloof, may at

first sight seem strange and artificial.. . . And if we have before us a really great artist, he must

have reflected in his work at least some of the essential aspects of the revolution (Sobr. soch.,5th ed., vol. 17, p. 206). According to Lunacharskii, Lenins theory of reflection took intoaccount not so much the writers origin as the manner in which he reflects social changes, not

so much the authors subjective attachments and links with a particular social milieu as theextent to which he is objectively representative of a given historical situation (Stati o literature,1957, p. 41).

One of the complex and vital issues of 20th-century culture was that of cultural heritage.

Guidelines for solving this problem in terms of Marxist literary theory and criticism were

provided by Lenins doctrine of two national cultures in each national culture (that of theruling classes and democratic and socialist culture), as well as by his defense of the culturalheritage of the past, which he developed in the course of his struggle against Proletkult.

Marxism, he wrote, far from rejecting the most valuable achievements of the bourgeois epochhas, on the contrary, assimilated and refashioned everything of value in the more than two

thousand years of development of human thought and culture (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol.41, p. 337).

Lenins article The Party Organization and Party Literature (1905) recognizes the importanceof literature in the social and political life of society. This article became the basis of one of the

guiding principles of Marxist literary theory and criticismthe principle of party-mindedness(partiinost).The key element of this principle is conscious service to socialism and the toilingmillions. Lenins theory of reflection, his principle ofpartiinostin literature, and his doctrineof cultural heritage were fundamental for the creation of the theory of socialist realism.

Contemporary Soviet literary theory and criticism is a science that studies all aspects of literature

and its origins and social ties. It studies the distinctive features of word-image artistic thinking,the nature and functions of artistic creativity, and the general and local lawlike regularities ofliterary history. In recent decades research in poetics has aimed at identifying the form-creating,

content aspects of literature. This has brought into focus the problem of the literary work as a

complex system to be considered within the framework of a changing historical and socialcontext.

Such an approach, which opposes the atomistic-metaphysical trends of positivist literary theoryand criticism, establishes the hierarchical nature of the works inner organization and considersits components functionally, in their changing relationships to one another. Greater attention is

being given to the mathematical aspects of literary study, and structural-semiotic methods of

research are developing. Including artistic phenomena in the social-intellectual process, Sovietliterary study investigates the place and functions of literature within other systemseconomic,social, and ideological. This enables Soviet literary theory and criticism to overcome the one-

sidedness of certain foreign schools, for example, to determine the true role of the mythological

and ritual elements in classical and medieval literature. During the 1960s study of the historicaldestiny of artistic worksthe history of their recognition and the problems of their origin andtypologywere set as scholarly goals. Greater attention has been directed to the points ofcontact and the transitions in artistic epochs, periods, and stylesfor example, ancient and


14/160

Byzantine literature, medieval Latin and modern European literature, the Enlightenment and

romanticism, and ancient and modern Russian literature.

Comparative study attempts to go beyond external and occasional similarities and to deal with

historically conditioned artistic and, more broadly, general cultural contacts and analogies. The

study of literary links in Soviet literary theory and criticism has become a typological study ofthe uniformity of the literary process, which passes through relatively similar artistic stages in

different countries. Textual criticism has expanded considerably, and various types of editions of

the Russian classics, including scholarly ones, have been published. The foundations are beinglaid for the comprehensive study of literature in its relation to other art forms, ideology, and

science.

Questions ofpartiinostand national character in literature and theoretical problems of socialistrealism are being explored. Many books and collections of articles criticize contemporary

bourgeois methodology and revisionist, sectarian, and vulgarizing trends in Marxist literary

theory and criticism. Party decisions on ideological questions exert a considerable influence on

Soviet literary studies. The 1972 resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU On Literary-Artistic Criticism emphasizes the importance of criticism in the strict sense (kritika) and of

literary theory and criticism (literaturovedenie) in the cultural life of the Soviet people today.Marxist-Leninist doctrine must be applied in thoroughly analyzing the literary process, exposing

the reactionary essence of bourgeois mass culture and decadent currents and strugglingagainst all types of non-Marxist views of literature and art and revisionist aestheticconceptions (Kommunist, 1972, no. 2, p. 14).

REFERENCES

Marx, K., and F. Engels. Ob iskusstve, vols. 12. Moscow, 1967.

Lenin, V. I. O literature i iskusstve, 4th ed. Moscow, 1969.Veselovskii, A. N. O metode i zadachakh istorii literatury kak nauki. InIstoricheskaia poetika.Leningrad, 1940.Arkhangelskii, A. S. Vvedenie v istoriiu russkoi literatury, vol. 1. Petrograd, 1916.Wehrli, M. Obshchee literaturovedenie. Moscow, 1957. (With bibliography; translated from

German.)Sovremennaia kniga po estetike: Antologiia. Moscow, 1957. (Translated from English.)

Teoriia literatury: Osnovnye problemy v istoricheskom osveshchenii [vols. 13]. Moscow, 196265.Timofeev, L. I. Osnovy teorii literatury, 4th ed. Moscow, 1971.

Nikolaev, P. A. Vozniknovenie marksistskogo literaturovedeniia v Rossii. Moscow, 1970.

Kayser, W.Das sprachliche Kunstwerk, 12th ed. Berlin-Munich, 1967. (With bibliography.)Wellek, R., and A. Warren. Theory of Literature, 3rd ed. New York, 1963. (With bibliography.)Wellek, R. Concepts of Criticism. New York, 1963.

Wellek, R.A History of Modern Criticism, 17501950, vols. 14. New Haven-London, 195566.Curtius, E. R.Europische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, 2nd ed. Bern, 1954.Markiewicz, H. Gwne problemy wiedzy o literaturze, 2nd ed. Krakw, 1966.IU. V. MANN and K. SH. PEROTOV (20th century literary theory and criticism)


15/160

Journals. Periodicals containing information on the literary process and its study, as well as

original studies in literary history and theory, are called journals of literary theory and criticism

(literaturovedcheskie zhurnaly). Originating in the late 19th century as multifaceted publications,these journals differ from purely bibliographic publications or synopses and from literary

magazines, in which sections devoted to criticism and bibliography largely supplement the

publication of fiction and which are intended for readers not possessing a specialized knowledgeof literary theory and criticism. Akin to journals of literary theory and criticism are thephilological journals of scholarly institutions and societies and the literary-political magazines, in

which literary articles and surveys are generally of a publicistic nature. In 1971 some 800

journals of this type were published throughout the world; including those publications known asproceedings or archives, the number exceeds 1,400.

The philological disciplines developed rapidly during the Renaissance, and the scholarly

information that was regularly published in the 17th century included much that was of a

philological nature. The prototypes of the present journal of literary theory and criticism thusinitiated Western European and world journalism. Among these prototypes were the

summarizing bulletins of the French physician T. Renaudot (1630s and 1640s) and the French

Journal des savants (founded in 1665) andNouvelles de la Rpublique des lettres (16841718).The next stage in the evolution of the journal of literary theory and criticism was the appearanceof similar publications in other European countriesC. ThomasiusMonatsgesprche (168890), the first German journal, and The Compleat Library (169294) of the English publisher J.Dunton. In the latter, the composition and proportion of the various sections (surveys, studies,criticism, and bibliography) of journals of literary theory and criticism were defined for the first

time.

In these publications the word literature was broadly interpreted as book learning or philology.Journals devoted to literature appeared a century later, when the distinctive features of verbal art

came under investigation and literature gained recognition as a form of social activity. The

critical survey, an established part of the journal of literary theory and criticism, took on

publicistic overtones in French, English, and Italian journals, such as the Gazette littraire(176466, to which Voltaire and Diderot contributed), and the Memoires secrtes pour servir lhistoire de la Rpublique des lettres (176287) in France andLa frusta letteraria (176365),published by the Italian writer G. Baretti. A philosophical-aesthetic approach to literaryquestions marked the German journals, including LessingsBriefe dieneueste Literaturbetreffend(175965) and A. W. SchlegelsAthenum (17981800). Journals that incorporatedarticles on literary theory and criticism also appeared in Russia and the western hemisphere inthe 18th century.

In the 19th century critical surveys and reviews became more common and the presentation of

bibliographical information was improved, but articles on specific problems of artistic creativity

or literary theory, occupying a central place in 20th-century journals of literary theory andcriticism, were seldom encountered. Surveys were usually publicistic and were not restricted to

literature, for example, V. G. Belinskiis surveys, which combined literary study with publicisticeloquence. A number of leading journals combined literary and political concerns, including the

Edinburgh Review (18021929, Great Britain),Die Wage (181821, Germany), edited by L.Boerne,Revue des deux mondes (18291944, 1945France), the United States Magazine andDemocratic Review (183759, United States), the Russian Vestnik Evropy (180230), Teleskop(183136), andMoskovskii Telegrafi 182534).Journals of literary theory and criticism in the modern sense appeared at the turn of the 20th


16/160

century, when the methodological principles of literary study were being worked out. Among

these were theRusskii filologicheskii vestnik(18791918), the GermanEuphorion (18941951)andDie Literatur(18981942), the FrenchMercure de France (since 1890) andNouvelle revuefranaise (since 1909), and the Italian Giornale storico della letteratura italiana (since 1883)

and Critica (190344, 1951), edited by B. Croce. The journal of literary theory and criticism

assumed its final form in the 1920s and 1930s. In the West such journals were usually theorgan of a group or school, such as T. S. Eliots Criterion (192239), F. R. Leavis Scrutiny(193253), and J. Ortega y Gassets Gaceta literaria (192732).Among the most important contemporary journals of literary theory and criticism in the West are

the AustralianMeanjin Quarterly (published since 1941); the Austrian Sprachkunst(since 1970);the American journalsAmerican Literature (since 1929), Contemporary Literature (since 1960),

andNew Literary History (since 1969); the British Critical Quarterly (since 1959); the review of

world English-language literatureAriel(since 1970); the West GermanPoetica (since 1967) and

Text und Kritik(since 1963); the SpanishRevista de literatura (since 1952); the generalScandinavianEdda (since 1914); and the Swedish Svensk literaturtideskrift(since 1938).

In the Oriental countries journals of literary theory and criticism appeared only in the 20th

century, first in Japan. Among the outstanding journals and magazines today areKabul(Afghanistan, since 1931),Lotus: Afro-Asian Writing(Egypt, since 1970),Alochna (in Hindi,

since 1951), Contemporary Indian Literature (India, since 1960), al-Adab (Lebanon, since

1953),Bungaku (Japan, since 1933), and Outlook(Japan, since 1960).

In the Soviet Union the first journals devoted to literary theory and criticism were established inthe 1920s, notablyNa postu (192325),Na literaturnom postu (192632), andLiteratura imarksizm (192831). The journalsPechat i revoliutsiia (192130) andLiteraturnyi kritik(193340) publicized the achievements of Soviet literary studies as a whole. Today this functionis fulfilled by such journals as Voprosy literatury (since 1957),Russkaia literatura (since 1958),

Radianske literaturoznavstvo (since 1957, Ukrainian SSR),Keel ja kirjandus (since 1958,Estonian SSR), and those appearing in other languages of the Soviet peoples.

Among the most highly regarded journals of literary theory and criticism in the other socialistcountries areLiteraturna misul(Bulgaria, since 1957),Kritika (Hungary, since 1963), Sinn und

Form (German Democratic Republic [GDR], since 1949), Weimarer Beitrage (GDR, since

1955), Twrczo (Poland, since 1945),Ruch literacki (Poland, since 1960),Revista de istoria siteorie literar (Rumania, since 1952), esk literatura (Czechoslovakia, since 1953), Slovenskliteratura (Czechoslovakia, since 1954), andIzraz(Yugoslavia, since 1957).

V. S. MURAVEV

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979). 2010 The Gale Group, Inc. All

rights reserved.

Ads by GoogleControl Hair Loss. Visit

the Scalp therapie E-Clinic now for a free consultation

hairfalleclinic.com
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/gr.aspx?pos=1&source=http%3A%2F%2Fencyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com%2FLiterary%2BTheory%2Band%2BCriticism&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleadservices.com%2Fpagead%2Faclk%3Fsa%3DL%26amp%3Bai%3DCWrLZWVFRUblHpt2KB4exgECx0_6PA-H6usphkavspEYQAiCZkaAeKBRQyqWSyPz_____AWDlwueDyA6gAZ-Jyt4DyAEBqQKt5H8ajcFTPqgDAaoEpwFP0LsIN6OvKKjIb5o3bh5t_Y4p3TBYVXMrUU498pk_JT5ABGjDqTpfhbLcGi23ZIzhYqUPFft7iy0BEBvhuLBIvr1AIqD0Km7P9g3ztx1fpF9HWLGYR7pa4Bwyx4ClINDfSyuEU-k9ufDNGrs7cMv2prlmsTiVrya-o4FUmcfi4c-WOn48lF05gOjWQl-JzAJ5r4ourU1Swy7L1h85E8v9sMcguEHyG4gGAYAHyfa1IQ%26amp%3Bnum%3D2%26amp%3Bcid%3D5GjnmJwvLnIBTCW9LyCMm3UT%26amp%3Bsig%3DAOD64_0bojdI7SlrbS0ByYgK36TEWI3-8A%26amp%3Bclient%3Dca-pub-1474111418698121%26amp%3Badurl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.hairfalleclinic.com%2F%253Futm_source%253DGoogle%2526utm_medium%253DTextads%2526utm_content%253DICM%2526utm_campaign%253DMarch_Campaignhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/gr.aspx?pos=1&source=http%3A%2F%2Fencyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com%2FLiterary%2BTheory%2Band%2BCriticism&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleadservices.com%2Fpagead%2Faclk%3Fsa%3DL%26amp%3Bai%3DCWrLZWVFRUblHpt2KB4exgECx0_6PA-H6usphkavspEYQAiCZkaAeKBRQyqWSyPz_____AWDlwueDyA6gAZ-Jyt4DyAEBqQKt5H8ajcFTPqgDAaoEpwFP0LsIN6OvKKjIb5o3bh5t_Y4p3TBYVXMrUU498pk_JT5ABGjDqTpfhbLcGi23ZIzhYqUPFft7iy0BEBvhuLBIvr1AIqD0Km7P9g3ztx1fpF9HWLGYR7pa4Bwyx4ClINDfSyuEU-k9ufDNGrs7cMv2prlmsTiVrya-o4FUmcfi4c-WOn48lF05gOjWQl-JzAJ5r4ourU1Swy7L1h85E8v9sMcguEHyG4gGAYAHyfa1IQ%26amp%3Bnum%3D2%26amp%3Bcid%3D5GjnmJwvLnIBTCW9LyCMm3UT%26amp%3Bsig%3DAOD64_0bojdI7SlrbS0ByYgK36TEWI3-8A%26amp%3Bclient%3Dca-pub-1474111418698121%26amp%3Badurl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.hairfalleclinic.com%2F%253Futm_source%253DGoogle%2526utm_medium%253DTextads%2526utm_content%253DICM%2526utm_campaign%253DMarch_Campaignhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/gr.aspx?pos=1&source=http%3A%2F%2Fencyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com%2FLiterary%2BTheory%2Band%2BCriticism&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleadservices.com%2Fpagead%2Faclk%3Fsa%3DL%26amp%3Bai%3DCWrLZWVFRUblHpt2KB4exgECx0_6PA-H6usphkavspEYQAiCZkaAeKBRQyqWSyPz_____AWDlwueDyA6gAZ-Jyt4DyAEBqQKt5H8ajcFTPqgDAaoEpwFP0LsIN6OvKKjIb5o3bh5t_Y4p3TBYVXMrUU498pk_JT5ABGjDqTpfhbLcGi23ZIzhYqUPFft7iy0BEBvhuLBIvr1AIqD0Km7P9g3ztx1fpF9HWLGYR7pa4Bwyx4ClINDfSyuEU-k9ufDNGrs7cMv2prlmsTiVrya-o4FUmcfi4c-WOn48lF05gOjWQl-JzAJ5r4ourU1Swy7L1h85E8v9sMcguEHyG4gGAYAHyfa1IQ%26amp%3Bnum%3D2%26amp%3Bcid%3D5GjnmJwvLnIBTCW9LyCMm3UT%26amp%3Bsig%3DAOD64_0bojdI7SlrbS0ByYgK36TEWI3-8A%26amp%3Bclient%3Dca-pub-1474111418698121%26amp%3Badurl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.hairfalleclinic.com%2F%253Futm_source%253DGoogle%2526utm_medium%253DTextads%2526utm_content%253DICM%2526utm_campaign%253DMarch_Campaignhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/gr.aspx?pos=1&source=http%3A%2F%2Fencyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com%2FLiterary%2BTheory%2Band%2BCriticism&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleadservices.com%2Fpagead%2Faclk%3Fsa%3DL%26amp%3Bai%3DCWrLZWVFRUblHpt2KB4exgECx0_6PA-H6usphkavspEYQAiCZkaAeKBRQyqWSyPz_____AWDlwueDyA6gAZ-Jyt4DyAEBqQKt5H8ajcFTPqgDAaoEpwFP0LsIN6OvKKjIb5o3bh5t_Y4p3TBYVXMrUU498pk_JT5ABGjDqTpfhbLcGi23ZIzhYqUPFft7iy0BEBvhuLBIvr1AIqD0Km7P9g3ztx1fpF9HWLGYR7pa4Bwyx4ClINDfSyuEU-k9ufDNGrs7cMv2prlmsTiVrya-o4FUmcfi4c-WOn48lF05gOjWQl-JzAJ5r4ourU1Swy7L1h85E8v9sMcguEHyG4gGAYAHyfa1IQ%26amp%3Bnum%3D2%26amp%3Bcid%3D5GjnmJwvLnIBTCW9LyCMm3UT%26amp%3Bsig%3DAOD64_0bojdI7SlrbS0ByYgK36TEWI3-8A%26amp%3Bclient%3Dca-pub-1474111418698121%26amp%3Badurl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.hairfalleclinic.com%2F%253Futm_source%253DGoogle%2526utm_medium%253DTextads%2526utm_content%253DICM%2526utm_campaign%253DMarch_Campaignhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/gr.aspx?pos=1&source=http%3A%2F%2Fencyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com%2FLiterary%2BTheory%2Band%2BCriticism&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleadservices.com%2Fpagead%2Faclk%3Fsa%3DL%26amp%3Bai%3DCWrLZWVFRUblHpt2KB4exgECx0_6PA-H6usphkavspEYQAiCZkaAeKBRQyqWSyPz_____AWDlwueDyA6gAZ-Jyt4DyAEBqQKt5H8ajcFTPqgDAaoEpwFP0LsIN6OvKKjIb5o3bh5t_Y4p3TBYVXMrUU498pk_JT5ABGjDqTpfhbLcGi23ZIzhYqUPFft7iy0BEBvhuLBIvr1AIqD0Km7P9g3ztx1fpF9HWLGYR7pa4Bwyx4ClINDfSyuEU-k9ufDNGrs7cMv2prlmsTiVrya-o4FUmcfi4c-WOn48lF05gOjWQl-JzAJ5r4ourU1Swy7L1h85E8v9sMcguEHyG4gGAYAHyfa1IQ%26amp%3Bnum%3D2%26amp%3Bcid%3D5GjnmJwvLnIBTCW9LyCMm3UT%26amp%3Bsig%3DAOD64_0bojdI7SlrbS0ByYgK36TEWI3-8A%26amp%3Bclient%3Dca-pub-1474111418698121%26amp%3Badurl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.hairfalleclinic.com%2F%253Futm_source%253DGoogle%2526utm_medium%253DTextads%2526utm_content%253DICM%2526utm_campaign%253DMarch_Campaignhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/gr.aspx?pos=1&source=http%3A%2F%2Fencyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com%2FLiterary%2BTheory%2Band%2BCriticism&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleadservices.com%2Fpagead%2Faclk%3Fsa%3DL%26amp%3Bai%3DCWrLZWVFRUblHpt2KB4exgECx0_6PA-H6usphkavspEYQAiCZkaAeKBRQyqWSyPz_____AWDlwueDyA6gAZ-Jyt4DyAEBqQKt5H8ajcFTPqgDAaoEpwFP0LsIN6OvKKjIb5o3bh5t_Y4p3TBYVXMrUU498pk_JT5ABGjDqTpfhbLcGi23ZIzhYqUPFft7iy0BEBvhuLBIvr1AIqD0Km7P9g3ztx1fpF9HWLGYR7pa4Bwyx4ClINDfSyuEU-k9ufDNGrs7cMv2prlmsTiVrya-o4FUmcfi4c-WOn48lF05gOjWQl-JzAJ5r4ourU1Swy7L1h85E8v9sMcguEHyG4gGAYAHyfa1IQ%26amp%3Bnum%3D2%26amp%3Bcid%3D5GjnmJwvLnIBTCW9LyCMm3UT%26amp%3Bsig%3DAOD64_0bojdI7SlrbS0ByYgK36TEWI3-8A%26amp%3Bclient%3Dca-pub-1474111418698121%26amp%3Badurl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.hairfalleclinic.com%2F%253Futm_source%253DGoogle%2526utm_medium%253DTextads%2526utm_content%253DICM%2526utm_campaign%253DMarch_Campaign


17/160

...............................................

Explore

The degree ofinstitutionalisation

and acceptance ofcertain

Englishdialects
http://www.scribd.com/explorehttp://www.scribd.com/explorehttp://www.scribd.com/explorehttp://www.scribd.com/upload-document


18/160

Miguel ngel Bentez

Castro

Universidad de JanMIVCI

Abstract

Dialectal variation in

England has been for along time excluded from

all kinds of

officialcontexts,


19/160

favouring in that way the

superimposed orstandard variety of the

language.Fortunately,this tendency seems to

be currently undergoing a

change towards a

growingacceptance of

Englands regional voices.This implies that regional


20/160

dialects are no

longer viewed asuneducated and

backward varieties of theEnglish language, but as

communicativeand

linguistic tools in their

own right. This

favourable treatment ofdialectal variation would


21/160

nothave been possible, if

it had not been for thegreat efforts made by

some official institutionstomake the English

population more aware

of the linguistic richness

found in

English English


22/160

.The most noted example

of such changingattitudes towards

regional varieties is thatof theBBC, which in the

last few years has

replaced its famous

Standard RP English with

a clear regional flavour inmost of its programmes.


23/160

Table of contents

1.

Introduction.........................

.............................................

.....................................................................2

2.


24/160

Language

variation..............................

.............................................

.............................................

........2

2.1


25/160

Dialects and

accents..............................................................................

.............................................

.2

2.2

Language and society:Standard English and


26/160

RP.........................................

.......................................3

2.3

Linguistic prejudices andprescriptive

attitudes..............................

.............................................

.......5


27/160

2.4

Dialect

levelling...............................

..........................................................................................

.........6


28/160

2.5

Changing attitudes towards

non-standardvarieties...............................

.............................................

.7

3.


29/160

The North-South

divide...................................

.............................................

.........................................9

3.1


30/160

Southern English

dialects.............................................................................

.....................................10

3.2

Midland

diaLecTs............................................................................


31/160

.............................................

....11

3.3

East Angliandialects................................

.............................................

...........................................12


32/160

3.4

Northern English

dialects................................

..................................................................................12

4.


33/160

Geordie................................

.............................................

.............................................

......................13

4.1


34/160

Historical background and

origin of theterm.....................................

.............................................

.13

4.2

Main linguisticpeculiarities.........................


35/160

.............................................

........................................14

4.2.1

Pronunciation...................................................................

.............................................

..................14


36/160

4.2.2

Grammar.............................

.............................................

...............................................................15

4.2.3


37/160

Vocabulary...........................

.............................................

.............................................

................15

4.3


38/160

Is Geordie moving with the

times?...............................................................................

....................15

5.

Conclusion...........................

.............................................


39/160

.............................................

......................16

6.

References........................................................................

.............................................

......................17


40/160

7.

Index of

subjects................................

..........................................................................................

........17


41/160

The degree of

institutionalization andacceptance of certain English

dialects

2

Miguel ngel Bentez

CastroMIVCI

1.


42/160

INTRODUCTION

The main aim of this

essay is to provide a

general overview ofthe way in

whichdialectal issuesare handled in England,

the place where theEnglish language was


43/160

born.In order to fulfil

this purpose, we shall

first of all comment on

some generalaspectsconcerning

language variation inEngland. Obviously

enough, any account of

languagevariation in


44/160

this country will

inevitably entail

referring to such

notions asstandardness

,RP

andnon-standard varieties


45/160

. In the course of this

explanation, we will

realize theextent to

which social values mayplay a role in the way

the English language isusedand viewed in this

part of the world. Once

the general framework


46/160

is set, we will

thendraw our

attention to a brief

description of the so-called

North-South divide, that is tosay, the

degree to which theNorth and the South of


47/160

England differ from a

socio-economic and

linguistic perspective.

The last section of thispaper will be devoted

to adetailedcommmentary on one

of the most well-known

urban dialects of


48/160

England:Geordie.

Although this section

will include some

linguistic facts, it shouldbe noted thatwe will be

mainly concerned withsocial aspects, namely

the degree

of institutionalization


49/160

and acceptance of this

northern dialect.

2.

LANGUAGE VARIATION

2.1

DIALECTS AND ACCENTS


50/160

Languages are not

simply cold linguistic

systems studied in

grammar books, butrather,tools for human

communication.Therefore, as a human

phenomenon, language

isendowed with the


51/160

spontaneous and ever-

changing nature typical

of us human beings. Itis

thanks to this mediumthat we can establish

social relationships withother people,and so

perform certain social

functions, for there is


52/160

no doubt that any

speech act has

a particular function in

the context where it istaking place. In addition

to thepurelycommunicative

function of language,

we should not overlook


53/160

that language is also

a powerful source of

personal information,

in the sense that theway we speak

our language is highlyinfluenced by both our

social status and our

region of origin. Thus,


54/160

if a given speaker

comes from County

Durham, for example,

he or she will probablyusethe kind of

language spoken bypeople from that part

of the country. If this

person isalso a middle-


55/160

class businessman, he

will use the kind of

language associated

with people of thistype. Kinds of language

of this sort are oftenreferred to as

dialects


56/160

, thefirst type in the

previous example being

a

regional

dialect

and the second a

social


57/160

dialect

.

Dialect

is a concept that tendsto be confused with

accent

; however, it should

beexplained thatdialect


58/160

has to do with lexical,

grammatical and

phonetic

differences betweendifferent language

varieties, whereasaccent

refers solely topronunciation.Taking


59/160

the notion of dialect as

a basis, I think that it

would be convenient to

definelanguage

as thecompilation

of all the dialects (orlanguage varieties) of a


60/160

givenlinguistic system

used worldwide.

Accordingly, the

English language as awhole wouldinclude

not only English English,but also American

English, Australian

English,Canadian


61/160

English...From what I

have just said, hence it

becomes clear that the

notion of a uniqueworldwide Standard

English is simply autopia which is quite

far from becoming a

reality, for as David


62/160

Graddol et al. (2007:

190) suggest, a

standard varietyof

English can onlyactually exist in the

shape of one of itsregional variations.In

the previous

paragraph, I have


63/160

introduced a concept

that surely stands out

in anydiscussion

revolving arounddialectal issues:

Standard English. This is the dialect

whichis normally usedofficially, that is, the


64/160

kind of English to be

found in printed

books,newspapers,

educational contexts,dictionaries, grammar

books...However, itsobvious

The degree ofinstitutionalization and


65/160

acceptance of certain English

dialects

3

Miguel ngel BentezCastroMIVCI

importance should notdeter us from

considering and


66/160

valuing the existence

of

unofficial

, or rather,non-standard dialects

. As we shall see lateron, it is when we

starttalking aboutstandard


67/160

and

non-standard

dialects that many

social prejudicesandmisjudgements

come into play.Havingmade clear some

introductory concepts,it should be stated that


68/160

theremainder of this

essay will be primarily

concerned with one of

the StandardEnglishesmentioned

above:English English

. This term refers tothe English language as


69/160

spokenonly in England.

Even though British

English is more

commonly used thanEnglishEnglish to

refer to the samereality, we should not

forget that the former

is reserved todescribe


70/160

the features common

to all UK language

varieties (English

English, WelshEnglish,Scottish English, and

sometimes Hiberno-English), while the

latter is restrictedto the


71/160

kind of English used

only in England.

2.2

LANGUAGE AND SOCIETY:

STANDARD ENGLISH ANDRP

As mentioned above,

dialects are both


72/160

regional

and

social

, so it is no wonder

that anyindividualspeakers speech

shows traces of his/herhome town, his/her


73/160

upbringing,education...

Peter Trudgill (2000:

23) calls the readers

attention to the factthat there arecertain

parallels between thedevelopment of social

varieties and that of

regionalvarieties. He


74/160

explains that the

development of both

regional and social

varieties has todo withthe existence of

barriers: geographical, in the

case of regionalvarieties, andsocial, in


75/160

the case of social

varieties. To provide an

example of the first

kind of barriers,it hasbeen found that

Traditional Dialectspeakers in the areas of

Britain north of theriver

Humber still have a


76/160

monophthong in words

like

house

/

/, whereasspeakerssouth of the

river have used a


77/160

diphthong for several

hundred years /

haus

/. Regionalvariation isundoubtedly also

affected bydistance

, so the greater thegeographicaldistance


78/160

between two dialects

the more dissimilar

they are

linguistically.Withregards to social

dialects, we may saythat they are also

affected by the

samekind of variables


79/160

to be found when

studying regional

dialects: barriers and

distance. Nevertheless,social barriers and

distance are not asclear-cut as

geographical

barriersand distance


80/160

may appear to be, for

what comes into play

now is not something

physical(a river, amountain) but

abstract. In fact, thedivision of society into

various strata isnothing

but a fairly blurred and


81/160

abstract classification

based on the notion of

privilege

,which is a conceptdetermined by power,

wealth and status.Trudgill (2000: 23)

holdsthat it takes a longtime for a linguistic


82/160

innovation that begins

amongst the highest

socialgroups to spread

to the lowest socialgroups, thus

emphasizing theparamount role that

social distance


83/160

may play when it

comes to dealing with

linguistic

matters.Before turningour attention to more

social aspects, weshould bear in mind

thatdialects are not

discrete varieties,


84/160

which means that it is

not possible to state in

exactgeographical and

linguistic terms wherepeople stop speaking

Cumbrian dialectandstart speaking

Geordie. Instead, we


85/160

should refer to what

sociolinguists call a

dialect continuum

, i.e. a range of dialectsspoken across a

geographical area,differing onlyslightly

between areas that aregeographically close,


86/160

and gradually

decreasing in

mutualintelligibility as

the distances becomegreater. If we choose to

place clear dividinglines between several

dialects, basing our

decision solely on


87/160

county boundaries,

then we will probably

be acting according to

socio-political loyalties

, rather than linguistic

facts.This statementseems to make sense if

we consider thedistinction drawn


88/160

betweenGeordie

(Newcastle) and

Mackem (Sunderland),

a distinction certainlybased more onfootball

rivalry and loyalty thanon actual linguistic

facts.


89/160

The degree of

institutionalization andacceptance of certain English

dialects

4

Miguel ngel Bentez

CastroMIVCI

From what we have

said so far, it may be


90/160

deduced that dialects

and accents inEngland

are clearly related to

differences of social-class background and

prestige.Taking thisidea into account, the

reader may begin to


91/160

understand why the

terms

Standard English

(a social dialect) andRP

(a social accent) are socontroversial and

soopen to heateddebate. Let us first


92/160

provide some general

background on the

emergenceand

subsequentimportance of

Standard English. The rise of a certain

dialect as thestandard


93/160

variety of that language

takes place

simultaneously with the

rise of a givensocialgroup as the most

powerful one. It isunder such

circumstances that the


94/160

standardvariety begins

to acquire the

social prestige

with which we tend toassociate the notionof

standardness

.In England, the

standard varietyderived from the


95/160

south-eastern triangle

aroundLondon, where

the Normans

established both theircourt and the

university townsof Oxford and

Cambridge. As

centuries went by, the


96/160

South-Eastern variety

was graduallyimposed

from above over the

range of regionaldialects, thereby trying

to obliteratelinguisticvariation and diversity

in favour of what

Trudgill (2000: 7) calls


97/160

asuperposed variety

Documents

What is Style and Stylistics