Day: August 15, 2024

Introduction: “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette  

“Structuralism and Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette was first published in 1966 as part of the collection Figures III. This seminal work ushered in a new era of literary analysis, emphasizing the importance of structural elements in understanding texts. Genette’s exploration of narrative, discourse, and genre laid the groundwork for contemporary literary theory, offering a rigorous and systematic approach to interpreting literary works.

Summary of “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette  

1. Mythical Thought, Bricolage, and Literary Criticism: Gérard Genette begins by drawing a parallel between Claude Lévi-Strauss’s notion of mythical thought as “a kind of intellectual bricolage” and the practice of literary criticism. Just as the bricoleur creatively uses available materials, literary critics work with the same materials—language—as the texts they analyze. Genette emphasizes that literary criticism is unique in that it “speaks the same language as its object,” functioning as a “metalanguage, ‘discourse upon a discourse,'” or what can be seen as “a literature of which literature itself is the imposed object.”
2. The Structuralist Foundation of Literary Criticism: Genette positions literary criticism as inherently a “structuralist activity,” arguing that it involves uncovering the internal structures of literary works rather than focusing on external contexts such as psychology or history. He suggests that structuralism is not just a method but also “a general tendency of thought,” where the critic’s task is to explore how literature as a system of signs generates meaning. By doing so, structuralism emphasizes the connection between form and meaning, moving beyond traditional realist approaches.
3. Beyond Formalism: Reconnecting Form and Meaning: Structuralism, according to Genette, moves beyond the reductionist approach of Formalism by reconnecting form with meaning. While Formalism might focus solely on linguistic elements, structuralism seeks to “uncover the connection that exists between a system of forms and a system of meanings.” This approach enables a deeper understanding of literature by analyzing larger structural units such as narrative and description, rather than merely focusing on individual linguistic features.
4. The Ambitious Scope of Structuralism: The structuralist approach is ambitious in its scope, aiming to tackle not only linguistic elements but also the “semantic phenomena” that constitute the essence of poetic language and literary semiology. Genette argues that structuralism should extend its analysis beyond the sentence to encompass the “large unities” of discourse, such as narrative and description, which he suggests could lead to the development of a “new rhetoric” necessary for literary analysis.
5. Structuralism in the Context of Literary History: Genette highlights that structuralism offers a novel way to understand literary evolution through synchronic analysis, focusing on the functions of elements within the literary system rather than their diachronic presence. He asserts that “literary history becomes the history of a system,” where the evolution of functions is more significant than the mere presence or absence of elements. This approach allows for a richer understanding of how literary systems evolve over time.
6. Structuralism and Hermeneutics: A Complementary Relationship: Contrary to viewing structuralism and hermeneutics as mutually exclusive, Genette suggests that they can be complementary. He posits that while structuralism offers a distant, analytical perspective, hermeneutics can provide a more interpretive and creative approach to literary criticism. The “relation that binds structuralism and hermeneutics together might not be one of mechanical separation and exclusion, but of complementarity,” allowing each approach to enrich the other.
7. The Structuralist Approach to Literary Coherence: Genette argues that when literary criticism focuses on the internal structure of a work, it naturally aligns with structuralist principles. This method provides a way to understand the coherence of a literary work by analyzing the network of themes within it. Structuralism thus serves as “a refuge for all immanent criticism against the danger of fragmentation,” enabling a deeper exploration of the unity and coherence of literary texts.
8. The Risks and Rewards of Structuralist Analysis: While Genette acknowledges the power of structuralism as a tool for literary analysis, he also warns of its potential risks. He notes that “structures are not directly encountered objects…they are systems of latent relations, conceived rather than perceived,” highlighting the interpretative nature of this approach. Critics must be cautious not to “invent” structures where none exist, maintaining a balance between discovery and interpretation.
9. Understanding Literary Evolution through Functional Analysis: Finally, Genette emphasizes the importance of understanding literary evolution through the analysis of functions rather than elements. He argues that the “evolution of the functions…is significant, not that of the elements,” and that a thorough understanding of synchronic relations is essential before exploring diachronic changes. This approach to literary history allows for a more nuanced understanding of how literary forms and themes change over time, contributing to the richness of literary analysis.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette  

Term/Concept	Definition
Bricolage	The process of making use of available materials and tools, rather than specialized ones, for a specific task. Genette applies this concept to literary criticism, suggesting that critics use the same materials (language) as the works they analyze.
Metalanguage	A language used to describe or analyze another language. In literary criticism, it is the language used to discuss and analyze literary works.
Metaliterature	A literature that has literature itself as its primary object of study.
Structuralism	A method of analysis that focuses on the underlying structures of a system, rather than its individual elements. In literature, it involves studying the relationships between elements within a text.
Formalism	A literary movement that focuses on the form and structure of a literary work, rather than its content or meaning.
Semiotics	The study of signs and symbols and their meaning. In literary criticism, it involves analyzing the meaning of literary texts as systems of signs.
Discourse	A unit of language larger than a sentence, often encompassing a complete thought or idea. In literary criticism, it refers to the overall structure and organization of a text.
Hermeneutics	The theory and practice of interpretation, especially of texts.
Structural Dynamics	The study of how literary structures change over time.

Contribution of “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette  to Literary Theory/Theories

• Introduction of Structuralism as a Method in Literary Criticism: Gérard Genette significantly contributes to literary theory by positioning literary criticism as a structuralist activity. He argues that structuralism provides a method for uncovering the underlying structures within literary texts, rather than focusing on external factors like authorial intent or historical context. This approach shifts the focus of criticism to the internal mechanics of the text itself, emphasizing that “literary criticism speaks the same language as its object: it is a metalanguage, ‘discourse upon a discourse.'”
• Reconceptualization of Literature as a System of Signs: Genette’s application of structuralist theory to literature redefines literary works as systems of signs that generate meaning through their structure. This reconceptualization moves away from viewing literature as a reflection of reality or a vehicle for expressing an author’s thoughts. Instead, it emphasizes the formal and structural aspects of texts, where “what was a sign for the writer (the work) becomes meaning for the critic.”
• Bridging the Gap between Formalism and Structuralism: Genette bridges the gap between Formalism and Structuralism by emphasizing the need to reconnect form with meaning. While Formalism focused primarily on the linguistic elements of texts, Genette argues that structuralism goes further by uncovering the connections between these forms and their meanings within the broader literary system. He asserts that “structural analysis must make it possible to uncover the connection that exists between a system of forms and a system of meanings.”
• Expansion of Structural Analysis Beyond Linguistics: Genette expands the scope of structuralist analysis beyond the linguistic level to encompass larger units of discourse, such as narrative and description. This broadens the potential for literary analysis, addressing the limitations of earlier structuralist approaches that focused solely on linguistic elements. As Genette suggests, “one would thus study systems from a much higher level of generality, such as narrative, description, and the other major forms of literary expression.”
• Contribution to the Development of Literary Semiotics: Genette’s work significantly contributes to the development of literary semiotics by advocating for the analysis of the “large unities” of discourse. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between code and message, which is central to the study of literary semiotics. He notes that “the ambition of structuralism is not confined to counting feet and to observing the repetitions of phonemes: it must also attack semantic phenomena which…constitute the essence of poetic language.”
• Challenge to Traditional Realism and Positivism: Genette challenges traditional realism and positivism in literary criticism by advocating for a focus on the internal structure of literary works. By moving away from the search for external causes and conditions, he encourages an understanding of literature as an autonomous system. In doing so, he connects structuralism with “the general movement away from positivism, ‘historicizing history’ and the ‘biographical illusion.'”
• Introduction of the Concept of Synchronic Literary Analysis: Genette introduces the concept of synchronic literary analysis, which involves studying the structures of a literary work at a specific moment in time. This approach contrasts with diachronic analysis, which focuses on the historical development of literary forms and themes. Genette emphasizes the importance of synchronic analysis by noting that “an element can remain while changing function, or on the contrary disappear while leaving its function to another.”
• Integration of Structuralism and Hermeneutics: Rather than viewing structuralism and hermeneutics as opposing approaches, Genette suggests that they can be complementary. This integration allows for a more holistic understanding of literary texts, where structural analysis provides a distant, objective perspective, and hermeneutic analysis offers a more interpretive, subjective understanding. He posits that “the relation that binds structuralism and hermeneutics together might not be one of mechanical separation and exclusion, but of complementarity.”
• Reinforcement of the Coherence and Unity of Literary Works: Genette’s structuralist approach reinforces the idea that literary works possess an inherent coherence and unity. By analyzing the internal structure of a text, critics can uncover the underlying principles that give the work its consistency and meaning, countering the fragmentation that might result from thematic analysis alone. Genette asserts that “structuralism…would appear to be a refuge for all immanent criticism against the danger of fragmentation.”

Examples of Critiques Through “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette  

Literary Work	Structural Analysis
Hamlet by William Shakespeare	Shakespeare’s Hamlet exhibits a complex structure centered around binary oppositions. These antithetical elements, such as life and death, revenge and inaction, and sanity and madness, create a dynamic tension that underpins the narrative. The play’s structure can be analyzed through a lens of dramatic irony, where the audience possesses knowledge concealed from characters, further emphasizing the play’s structural integrity.
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen	Austen employs a structured narrative framework based on societal norms and expectations of the Regency era. The novel’s plot revolves around the marriage market and the characters’ navigation of these social structures. The interplay between individual desires and societal constraints forms the core of the work’s structural integrity.
Moby Dick by Herman Melville	Melville’s Moby Dick presents a complex narrative structure that interweaves multiple genres, including adventure, philosophy, and allegory. The novel’s episodic structure and the symbolic significance of the white whale contribute to its overall structural complexity. The work can be analyzed through the lens of binary oppositions, such as man versus nature, good versus evil, and reality versus illusion.
Ulysses by James Joyce	Joyce’s Ulysses is renowned for its innovative and experimental structure, mirroring the structure of Homer’s Odyssey. The novel employs a stream-of-consciousness narrative, paralleling the complex and multifaceted nature of the human mind. The work’s structure can be analyzed through its use of motifs, symbols, and archetypes, which contribute to the overall thematic coherence.

Key Structuralist Concepts: This analysis primarily focuses on the works’ underlying structures, binary oppositions, narrative frameworks, and symbolic elements. A more in-depth study would explore other structuralist concepts such as character roles, plot development, and thematic patterns.

Criticism Against “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette  

• Overemphasis on Structure at the Expense of Substance: Critics argue that Genette’s structuralist approach places too much emphasis on the structural elements of literary works, potentially neglecting the substantive content, themes, and broader socio-political contexts that are also crucial for understanding literature.
• Risk of Reductive Analysis: The structuralist method, as described by Genette, can lead to reductive interpretations of literary texts by focusing primarily on formal structures. This approach might overlook the complexities and nuances of literary meaning that go beyond mere structural elements.
• Potential for Inventing Structures: Genette himself acknowledges that “structures are not directly encountered objects…they are systems of latent relations, conceived rather than perceived,” which raises the concern that structuralist analysis might invent structures rather than discover them, leading to subjective or arbitrary interpretations.
• Marginalization of Historical and Biographical Contexts: By advocating for a focus on the internal mechanics of texts, Genette’s structuralism risks marginalizing important historical, biographical, and cultural contexts that can provide valuable insights into a literary work’s meaning and significance.
• Limited Engagement with Reader Response: Structuralism, as presented by Genette, tends to focus on the text as an autonomous entity, potentially ignoring the role of the reader in constructing meaning. This limits engagement with reader-response theories, which emphasize the interaction between the text and its audience.
• Ambiguity in Methodology: Some critics find Genette’s structuralist methodology to be somewhat ambiguous, particularly in how it should be applied consistently across different literary texts. The lack of a clear, systematic approach can lead to varied and potentially inconsistent interpretations.
• Dismissal of Authorial Intent: Genette’s structuralism downplays or dismisses the relevance of authorial intent in literary analysis, which some critics believe is essential for understanding the deeper meanings and motivations behind a text.
• Potential for Dehumanization of Literature: The emphasis on structure and form over content and meaning may lead to what some critics see as the dehumanization of literature, where the emotional and human aspects of literary works are overshadowed by an over-analytical focus on technical structures.
• Challenges in Addressing Dynamic Literary Evolutions: While Genette discusses the importance of synchronic analysis, some critics argue that structuralism struggles to adequately address the dynamic and evolving nature of literature, particularly in terms of how literary forms and meanings change over time.

Suggested Readings: “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette  

1. Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Translated by Jane E. Lewin, Cornell University Press, 1980.
2. Barthes, Roland. Image-Music-Text. Translated by Stephen Heath, Hill and Wang, 1977.
3. Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. Cornell University Press, 1975.
4. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed., University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
5. Levi-Strauss, Claude. Structural Anthropology. Translated by Claire Jacobson and Brooke Grundfest Schoepf, Basic Books, 1963.
6. Rimmon-Kenan, Shlomith. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. 2nd ed., Routledge, 2002.
7. Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, translated by Wade Baskin, Philosophical Library, 1959.
8. Todorov, Tzvetan. The Poetics of Prose. Translated by Richard Howard, Cornell University Press, 1977.
9. Waugh, Patricia. Literary Theory and Criticism: An Oxford Guide. Oxford University Press, 2006.

Representative Quotations from “Structuralism And Literary Criticism” by Gerard Genette  with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Literary criticism speaks the same language as its object: it is a metalanguage, ‘discourse upon a discourse.'”	This quotation highlights the unique nature of literary criticism within structuralist theory, where criticism operates as a “metalanguage” that reflects or reinterprets literature at a higher level of abstraction.
“What was a sign for the writer (the work) becomes meaning for the critic.”	Genette emphasizes the shift from the writer’s perspective to the critic’s. For the writer, the work is a sign conveying meaning; for the critic, this sign becomes an object of study, with the critic’s role being to interpret this meaning.
“Structural analysis must make it possible to uncover the connection that exists between a system of forms and a system of meanings.”	This quotation captures the goal of structuralist criticism: to reveal how the forms within a literary work are connected to its meanings, thereby offering a deeper understanding of how literature functions as a system of signs.
“One would thus study systems from a much higher level of generality, such as narrative, description, and the other major forms of literary expression.”	Genette advocates for expanding structuralist analysis to larger units of discourse, like narrative and description, which allows for insights into the broader organizational principles and overall meaning of a text.
“Structuralism is bound up with the general movement away from positivism, ‘historicizing history’ and the ‘biographical illusion’.”	This quotation positions structuralism as part of a broader intellectual shift away from positivist approaches, focusing on the autonomy of the literary text and its internal structures rather than external historical or biographical contexts.
“An element can remain while changing function, or on the contrary disappear while leaving its function to another.”	Genette discusses the dynamic nature of literary systems, where elements within a structure can change their function over time or be replaced by others, reflecting the fluid and evolving nature of literary forms.

Introduction: “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler

“Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler was first published in 1981 as part of the collection Criticism. This seminal work was instrumental in shifting the focus of literary analysis from formalist approaches to a discourse-oriented perspective. By treating literature as a form of social interaction rather than an isolated aesthetic object, Fowler’s work opened up new avenues for exploring the relationship between language, power, and ideology within texts. This paradigm shift significantly impacted the trajectory of literary theory, leading to a more socially and culturally engaged mode of literary criticism.

Summary of “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler

• Critique of Linguistic Formalism: Fowler challenges “linguistic formalism,” particularly its focus on “distinctive syntactic and phonological shape,” as seen in Roman Jakobson’s work. He argues that this approach is “of limited significance” and “educationally restrictive” in literary studies.
• Literature as Discourse: Fowler proposes viewing literature as “discourse,” emphasizing the “interactional dimensions of texts.” This approach considers literature as “mediating relationships between language-users,” including “consciousness, ideology, role, and class.”
• Rejection of Formal Autonomy: Fowler rejects the idea that literary works possess “formal autonomy” and insists that literature is “part of social process” and subject to “causal and functional interpretations” similar to those in the sociology of language.
• Functional Linguistic Approach: Fowler advocates for a “functional theory of language,” as opposed to purely formalist approaches. He references Halliday’s functional grammar, which includes “ideational, interpersonal, and textual” functions, asserting that language’s purpose is rooted in its “communicative purposes.”
• Critique of Jakobson’s Poetic Function: Fowler criticizes Jakobson’s emphasis on the “phonetic and syntactic features” of poetry, arguing that it “suppresses” other language functions and reflects the “formalist goals” of a “historically specific culture.”
• Literature’s Responsibility: Fowler emphasizes that literature is not “exempt” from its “responsibility to work in the real world.” He argues that literature must acknowledge its “interpersonal function” and cannot be “cocooned” from its “relationship with society.”
• Speech Act Theory in Literary Criticism: Fowler introduces John Searle’s revision of Austin’s speech act theory, suggesting that “every utterance” in literature involves “locutionary, propositional, and illocutionary acts.” He uses Blake’s “Tyger” as an example to show how understanding these acts is “prerequisite to interpretation.”
• Focus on Interactional Features: Fowler concludes that analyzing literature as discourse allows critics to focus on “features of language” that “signal the interaction of consciousnesses.” This approach challenges “evasive critics’ strategies” that attempt to separate literature from “communicative transactions.”
• Literature as an Answerable Discourse: The essay argues that viewing literature as discourse makes it “inevitably answerable” and “responsible,” opposing the notion that literature can be an “objective” or “depersonalized” entity detached from society.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler

Literary Device/Concept	Definition	Example
Formalism	A literary theory that focuses on the text as an independent object, emphasizing its structure and form.	Jakobson’s analysis of poetry, concentrating on phonetic and syntactic features.
Discourse	Language in use, focusing on the interaction between language users and the social context.	Fowler’s approach to treating literature as a process of communication between implied speakers.
Ideational Function	The function of language that conveys a worldview and structures experience.	The transmission of a particular perspective through the use of nouns, predicates, and logical connectives.
Interpersonal Function	The function of language that establishes and maintains relationships between people.	The use of questions, assertions, and status markers to signal the relationship between speaker and listener.
Textual Function	The function of language that creates well-formed and coherent texts.	The use of grammatical structures and cohesive devices to create a complete and understandable message.
Speech Act	A unit of language that performs an action, such as stating, promising, or questioning.	Blake’s rhetorical questions in “Tyger” which challenge the reader’s understanding of power and beauty.
Illocutionary Act	The intended meaning of a speech act, such as requesting, informing, or promising.	The implied meaning behind Blake’s rhetorical questions, which is to persuade the reader of the error and inscrutability of power and beauty.

Contribution of “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler to Literary Theory/Theories

Literary Theory	Contribution	Supporting Quoted Phrases
Formalism	Challenges the focus on form, syntax, and structure as the primary elements of literary analysis.	“Linguistic formalism is of limited significance in literary studies, and educationally restrictive.”
Structuralism	Criticizes the reduction of literature to formal structures, advocating for a broader view of text as discourse.	“The text ceases to be an object and becomes an action or process.”
Marxism	Aligns with Marxist perspectives by recognizing literature’s connection to social and economic structures.	“The values are neither universal… They derive from the economic and social structures of particular societies.”
Sociolinguistics	Introduces the idea of literature as part of social discourse, focusing on its interactional dimensions.	“To treat literature as discourse is to see the text as mediating relationships between language-users: not only relationships of speech, but also of consciousness.”
Pragmatics	Applies speech act theory to literature, examining how language functions within texts to convey actions.	“Every utterance is simultaneously three language acts… locutionary, propositional, and illocutionary acts.”
Post-Structuralism	Questions the stability and universality of meaning, emphasizing literature’s role in social processes.	“No plausible essentialist or intrinsic definition of literature has been or is likely to be devised.”
Reader-Response Theory	Suggests that literature involves the reader in a communicative process, highlighting the role of interaction.	“These unanswerable questions bounce off the tiger towards the implied reader of the poem, and so a discourse is established.”
Discourse Analysis	Positions literature as a form of discourse that cannot be isolated from social communication and power relations.	“Literature isn’t exempt from language’s general responsibility to work in the real world of conflicts and sympathies.”
Cultural Studies	Recognizes literature as a product of cultural values, subject to historical and ideological influences.	“What literature is, can be stated empirically, within the realm of sociolinguistic fact… recognized by a culture as possessing certain institutional values.”

Examples of Critiques Through “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler

Literary Work	Critique (using Fowler’s concepts)
William Blake’s “Tyger”	Blake’s poem “Tyger” is a prime example of how discourse analysis can illuminate a text’s meaning. The speaker’s questions, though directed at the tiger, are infelicitous (violating the conditions of normal communication) and function rhetorically. These unanswerable questions (“What the hammer? what the chain?”) are not meant to elicit information from the tiger but rather to create a sense of disorientation in the reader. By highlighting the limitations of language to comprehend the tiger’s existence (“What the anvil? what dread grasp / Dare its deadly terrors clasp?”), the poem challenges our understanding of power and beauty.
Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice”	Through the lens of discourse analysis, Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” can be seen as a commentary on social class and its impact on communication. The characters’ language choices and interactions reveal their social standing and influence their relationships.   For instance, Mr. Darcy’s initial aloofness and Elizabeth Bennet’s spirited retorts reflect the societal expectations and power dynamics between the landed gentry and the middle class. The witty banter and underlying tension highlight the importance of interpersonal function in the novel, where language is used not just to convey information but also to establish dominance and negotiate social positions.
Charles Dickens’ “Oliver Twist”	Charles Dickens’ “Oliver Twist” utilizes language to convey a particular ideology and critique social injustices. The impoverished characters’ limited vocabulary and the use of slang reflect their marginalization within society.   Dickens employs the ideational function extensively, shaping the reader’s worldview by depicting the harsh realities of poverty and the power imbalances between the rich and the poor. The narrative exposes the hypocrisy of Victorian society through the characters’ language and actions.
Modern Dystopian Novel	In a modern dystopian novel, the manipulation of language by the ruling class becomes a central theme. The government restricts vocabulary and enforces specific forms of discourse to control the population’s thoughts and behavior.   This suppression of free speech and critical thinking exemplifies Fowler’s concept of discourse as a tool for social control. By analyzing the limited language choices available to the characters, we can understand the oppressive nature of the regime and the characters’ potential resistance strategies.

Criticism Against “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler

• Overemphasis on Social Context: Critics argue that Fowler places too much emphasis on the social and ideological context of literature, potentially overshadowing the aesthetic and artistic qualities of the text.
• Neglect of Literary Autonomy: Fowler’s rejection of the formal autonomy of literature is seen by some as diminishing the unique qualities that distinguish literary texts from other forms of discourse.
• Reduction of Literature to Discourse: Some critics believe that treating literature solely as discourse may oversimplify complex literary works, reducing them to mere social or ideological functions rather than appreciating their multifaceted nature.
• Potential Undervaluation of Formalist Insights: By dismissing linguistic formalism as “of limited significance,” Fowler may overlook valuable insights that formalist approaches can offer in understanding the structure and technique of literary works.
• Risk of Ideological Bias: Fowler’s approach, which emphasizes literature’s role in reflecting and mediating social relationships, might introduce an ideological bias that interprets texts primarily through a political or social lens, potentially skewing interpretations.
• Challenge to Traditional Aesthetics: Fowler’s challenge to conventional literary aesthetics, such as the notion of “objective” or “depersonalized” literature, is seen by some as an undermining of well-established critical frameworks that have long been valued in literary studies.
• Complexity of Speech Act Theory Application: The application of speech act theory to literature, as advocated by Fowler, might be viewed as overly complex or impractical, especially for literary works that do not fit neatly into the framework of locutionary, propositional, and illocutionary acts.

Suggested Readings: “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler

1. Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics, and the Study of Literature. Cornell University Press, 1975.
2. Fowler, Roger. Essays on Style and Language: Linguistics and Critical Approaches to Literary Style. Routledge, 1966.
3. Fowler, Roger. Literature as Social Discourse: The Practice of Linguistic Criticism. Batsford Academic and Educational, 1981.
4. Halliday, M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Edward Arnold, 1978.
5. Jakobson, Roman. “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” Style in Language, edited by Thomas A. Sebeok, MIT Press, 1960, pp. 350-377.
6. Lodge, David. The Modes of Modern Writing: Metaphor, Metonymy, and the Typology of Modern Literature. Cornell University Press, 1977.
7. Richards, I. A. Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgment. Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1929.
8. Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, 1969.
9. Widdowson, H.G. Stylistics and the Teaching of Literature. Longman, 1975.

Representative Quotations from “Literature As Discourse” by Roger Fowler with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The text ceases to be an object and becomes an action or process.”	This quotation highlights Fowler’s central thesis that literature should be seen as an interactive discourse, not merely as a static, formal structure.
“To treat literature as discourse is to see the text as mediating relationships between language-users.”	Fowler emphasizes that literature plays a role in shaping and reflecting social relationships, making it a dynamic participant in communication and society.
“Linguistic formalism is of limited significance in literary studies, and educationally restrictive.”	Fowler critiques the traditional focus on formalist approaches in literary studies, arguing that they fail to account for the broader social and communicative functions of literature.
“What literature is, can be stated empirically, within the realm of sociolinguistic fact.”	This statement reflects Fowler’s view that literature’s definition is not fixed but is shaped by cultural and social contexts, which can be observed and analyzed empirically.
“Literature isn’t exempt from language’s general responsibility to work in the real world of conflicts and sympathies.”	Fowler argues that literature, as a form of language, must engage with real-world issues, and cannot be isolated from social and ethical responsibilities.
“A text is treated as a process, the communicative interaction of implied speakers and thus of consciousnesses and of communities.”	This quotation encapsulates Fowler’s approach to literary analysis, which focuses on understanding texts as active communicative processes that involve multiple perspectives and social interactions.

Introduction: “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson

“Linguistics and Poetics” by Roman Jakobson was first published in 1960 as part of the collection A Linguist’s Handbook. This seminal essay revolutionized literary theory by bridging the gap between linguistics and poetics. Jakobson argued that poetic language is not fundamentally different from everyday language but rather represents a heightened focus on the message itself. By introducing the concept of the poetic function and exploring the six elements of communication, he provided a framework for analyzing literary texts with unprecedented rigor and sophistication. This essay remains a cornerstone of literary studies, inspiring countless scholars and critics to delve deeper into the intricacies of language and its artistic potential.

Summary of “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson

Term	Definition	Example
Poetic Function	Focus on the message for its own sake, emphasizing the form and sound of language.	Poetry, advertising jingles, and even everyday speech can exhibit poetic function.
Selection and Combination	Two basic modes of language use: choosing words and arranging them.	Selecting the words “child” and “sleeps” and combining them into “the child sleeps.”
Equivalence	The principle of similarity or sameness between elements in language.	Rhyme, meter, and alliteration are based on equivalence.
Contiguity	The principle of connection or association between elements in language.	Syntax, grammar, and the flow of ideas rely on contiguity.
Referential Function	Focus on the context or object being referred to.	Informative texts, news reports, and scientific papers primarily use this function.
Emotive Function	Focus on the speaker’s attitude or emotions.	Exclamations, interjections, and emotionally charged language.
Conative Function	Focus on the addressee, aiming to influence or persuade.	Commands, requests, and advertising slogans.
Phatic Function	Focus on establishing, maintaining, or ending communication.	Greetings, small talk, and social rituals.
Metalingual Function	Focus on the code itself, explaining or clarifying language.	Dictionaries, grammar books, and language lessons.

Contribution of “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson

Literary Work	Poetic Function	Referential Function
“Hamlet” by Shakespeare	– Utilizes complex poetic devices to enhance textual musicality and structural beauty.	– Grounds the narrative with a detailed historical and geographical setting.
“1984” by George Orwell	– Employs straightforward language; poetic elements highlight thematic concerns subtly.	– Creates a detailed, believable dystopian context that frames the narrative.
“The Waste Land” by T.S. Eliot	– Dense with allusions, employing a complex structure to elevate thematic and formal expression.	– Rich in historical, cultural, and mythological allusions that deepen the narrative context.
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen	– Irony and wit provide a poetic quality to the narrative, subtly influencing reader perception.	– Offers a meticulous depiction of early 19th-century English society, informing character behavior and social interactions.

Criticism Against “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson

Suggested Readings: “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson

1. Culler, Jonathan. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature. Cornell UP, 1975.
2. Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed., U of Minnesota P, 2008.
3. Holdcroft, David. Saussure: Signs, System, and Arbitrariness. Cambridge UP, 1991.
4. Jakobson, Roman. Language in Literature. Edited by Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy, Harvard UP, 1987.
5. Jakobson, Roman, and Morris Halle. Fundamentals of Language. Mouton, 1956.
6. Joseph, John E. Saussure. Oxford UP, 2012.
7. Rudy, Stephen. Roman Jakobson: Life, Language, Art. Routledge, 1993.
8. Waugh, Linda R., and Monique Monville-Burston. On Language. Harvard UP, 1990.
9. Caton, Steven C. “Contributions of Roman Jakobson.” Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 16, 1987, pp. 223–60. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155871. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.
10. Waugh, Linda R. “The Poetic Function in the Theory of Roman Jakobson.” Poetics Today, vol. 2, no. 1a, 1980, pp. 57–82. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1772352. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.
11. Bohn, Willard. “Roman Jakobson’s Theory of Metaphor and Metonymy: An Annotated Bibliography.” Style, vol. 18, no. 4, 1984, pp. 534–50. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42945521. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.

Representative Quotations from “Linguistics And Poetics” by Roman Jakobson with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Poetics deals primarily with the question, What makes a verbal message a work of art?”	This quotation establishes the central concern of poetics as the identification of the qualities that elevate language to art.
“The verbal structure of a message depends primarily on the predominant function.”	This quote highlights the importance of function in shaping the structure of language. Different functions (referential, emotive, etc.) lead to distinct verbal structures.
“Each of these six factors determines a different function of language.”	This introduces Jakobson’s influential model of six language functions (referential, emotive, conative, phatic, metalingual, poetic).
“The poetic function projects the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination.”	This defines the poetic function as the emphasis on similarity and equivalence between words, sounds, or structures within a message.
“In poetry, and to a certain extent in latent manifestations of poetic function, sequences delimited by word boundaries become commensurable whether they are sensed as isochronic or graded.”	This quote delves deeper into the poetic function, explaining how it creates a sense of rhythm and measurability in language.
“To sum up, the analysis of verse is entirely within the competence of poetics…”	This quotation underscores the role of poetics in analyzing verse, recognizing its connection to, but distinction from, poetry.

Introduction: “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

“Definition of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov was first published in 1981 as part of the collection Introduction to Poetics. Translated into English in the same year, the work holds immense importance in literature and literary theory. It serves as a foundational text, offering a comprehensive framework for understanding the nature of literary language and its functions. Todorov’s exploration of narrative structure, genre, and the relationship between literature and reality has significantly influenced subsequent critical and theoretical discussions.

Summary of “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

• Two Attitudes in Literary Studies: Divergence Between Interpretation and Scientific Analysis: Todorov identifies two primary approaches in literary studies: one that treats the literary text as “a sufficient object of knowledge” and focuses on interpreting its meaning, and another that views each text as “the manifestation of an abstract structure” and seeks to understand the underlying laws governing literature. The first approach, which Todorov refers to as “interpretation,” aims to extract and articulate the meaning inherent within the text itself, considering the literary work as “the ultimate and unique object” of study (Todorov, p. 87). In contrast, the second approach inscribes itself within a scientific framework, where the goal is not merely to describe the particular work but to “establish general laws” that transcend individual texts (Todorov, p. 87). These two approaches, while distinct, are not necessarily incompatible, as they represent complementary perspectives on understanding literature.
• Interpretation: The Pursuit and Limitations of Extracting Meaning: Interpretation, which encompasses activities such as “exegesis, commentary, explication de texte,” and “close reading,” is defined by its pursuit to “name the meaning of the text examined” (Todorov, p. 87). The ideal of interpretation is to “make the text itself speak,” striving for fidelity to the object of study, which necessitates an “effacement of the subject”—the interpreter’s own biases and preconceptions (Todorov, p. 87). However, Todorov highlights the inherent drama in this approach: interpretation can never fully realize the text’s meaning but can only arrive at “a meaning subject to historical and psychological contingencies” (Todorov, p. 87). Moreover, pure interpretation risks becoming a mere “word-for-word repetition” of the work, as it must occasionally “project [the work] elsewhere than upon itself” to offer meaningful insights (Todorov, p. 87).
• Scientific Approach: Transcending the Particular to Discover General Laws: The second attitude in literary studies aligns itself with scientific inquiry, where the focus shifts from the particular text to the general principles it embodies. This approach sees the literary work not as an autonomous entity but as a “manifestation of laws that are external to it,” whether those laws pertain to psychology, sociology, philosophy, or other fields (Todorov, p. 88). The objective is to “transpose the work into the realm considered fundamental,” deciphering it as an expression of “something” beyond the text itself (Todorov, p. 88). This “labor of decipherment and translation” positions literary analysis within various scientific disciplines, aiming to uncover the broader laws that govern the creation and reception of literary works (Todorov, p. 88).
• Poetics: An Abstract and Internal Study of Literary Discourse: Todorov introduces poetics as a distinct approach that breaks down the dichotomy between interpretation and scientific analysis. Unlike interpretation, which seeks to name the meaning of individual works, poetics “does not seek to name meaning” but rather aims “at a knowledge of the general laws that preside over the birth of each work” within the literary domain (Todorov, p. 88). Unlike scientific analyses that look to external factors, poetics seeks these laws “within literature itself,” making it an “abstract” yet “internal” approach (Todorov, p. 88). The focus of poetics is not on the literary work itself but on the properties of “literary discourse,” specifically the concept of “literariness,” which Todorov defines as the “abstract property that constitutes the singularity of the literary phenomenon” (Todorov, p. 88). Thus, poetics is concerned with the theoretical structures and functions of literature as a whole, rather than with the specificities of individual texts.
• Structuralism and Poetics: Examining the Relationship and Distinctions: Todorov addresses the relationship between poetics and structuralism, acknowledging that poetics is “structural” in a broad sense because it deals with “an abstract structure (literature)” rather than individual literary works (Todorov, p. 89). However, Todorov distinguishes poetics from certain structuralist approaches that reduce literature to a system of communication or social codes. He argues that poetics, as he presents it, is not bound by the “limited corpus of hypotheses” associated with early structuralism, which often offered “instrumentalist conceptions of language” (Todorov, p. 89). Instead, poetics maintains a broader, more flexible relationship with structuralism, focusing on the inherent properties of literary discourse itself.
• Poetics and Linguistics: The Integral Role of Language in Literary Analysis: Finally, Todorov explores the connection between poetics and linguistics, asserting that literature is “a product of language,” and therefore, any study of literature must inherently engage with linguistic theories (Todorov, p. 89). While poetics may draw insights from linguistics, its scope is broader, encompassing “all the sciences of languages,” including disciplines such as anthropology, psychoanalysis, and philosophy of language (Todorov, p. 89). Poetics finds its closest allies in disciplines that study discourse, collectively forming the field of rhetoric, understood “in the broadest sense as a general science of discourses” (Todorov, p. 89). Thus, poetics positions itself at the intersection of literary theory, linguistics, and semiotics, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of literature as a linguistic and cultural phenomenon.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

Term	Definition	Example
Interpretation	The analysis of a literary text to determine its meaning.	A close reading of a poem to understand its symbolism.
Science	The study of general laws governing a particular phenomenon.	A sociological analysis of a novel to understand its social context.
Poetics	The study of the general laws governing the creation of literary works.	Investigating the structure of a sonnet to understand the form.
Literariness	The specific qualities that distinguish literary language from ordinary language.	The use of metaphor and imagery in poetry.
Structuralism	The study of underlying structures in language, culture, and society.	Analyzing the narrative structure of a short story.
Semiotics	The study of signs and symbols and their meaning.	Interpreting the symbolism of colors in a painting.

Additional Notes

• Interpretation and science represent two contrasting approaches to literary study.
• Poetics bridges the gap between these two approaches by focusing on the internal structure of literary works.
• Literariness is a key concept in poetics, as it defines the unique characteristics of literary language.
• Structuralism and semiotics provide theoretical frameworks for analyzing literary texts.

Contribution of “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

Literary Work	Todorov’s Concept	Critique	Reference
James Joyce, Ulysses	Structuralism	Joyce’s novel can be analyzed through a structuralist lens by examining the underlying patterns and repetitions, such as the cyclical structure of a day, mirroring the mythical journey of Odysseus.	Todorov, T. (1981). Introduction to Poetics.
Virginia Woolf, To the Lighthouse	Stream of Consciousness	While not directly addressed by Todorov, Woolf’s novel challenges the notion of a linear narrative structure, prompting a reconsideration of the limits of structuralist analysis.	Woolf, V. (1927). To the Lighthouse.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude	Magical Realism	Marquez’s blend of realism and fantasy complicates the application of traditional literary analysis, forcing a re-evaluation of the boundaries between different genres and literary modes.	Marquez, G. G. (1967). One Hundred Years of Solitude.
Toni Morrison, Beloved	Historical and Cultural Context	Morrison’s novel highlights the importance of considering historical and cultural factors in literary analysis, challenging the purely formalist approach advocated by some proponents of Todorov’s work.	Morrison, T. (1987). Beloved.

Additional Considerations

• Interdisciplinary Approach: Todorov’s work can be combined with other theoretical frameworks to offer more comprehensive analyses. For example, a feminist or postcolonial reading of Beloved could be enriched by considering the novel’s formal elements.
• Limitations of Structuralism: While Todorov’s structuralist approach provides valuable insights, it is essential to recognize its limitations, particularly when analyzing complex and innovative literary works.
• Reader Response: Todorov’s emphasis on the text itself might be challenged by reader-response theories, which prioritize the reader’s interpretation.

Criticism Against “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

• Overemphasis on Abstract Structures: Todorov’s focus on abstract structures and general laws may neglect the unique qualities and nuances of individual literary works. By prioritizing the abstract over the specific, there is a risk of reducing the richness of literary texts to mere instances of broader theoretical concepts, which can diminish the value of the literary experience.
• Detachment from Historical and Cultural Contexts: The approach Todorov advocates for poetics might be criticized for its detachment from the historical and cultural contexts in which literary works are produced and interpreted. By seeking to uncover universal laws of literature, poetics might overlook the ways in which texts are deeply embedded in and shaped by their specific social, political, and cultural environments.
• Potential for Reductionism: Todorov’s method could be seen as reductionist, as it attempts to fit the complexity of literature into predetermined theoretical frameworks. Critics might argue that this approach oversimplifies the diverse and multifaceted nature of literary works, reducing them to mere exemplifications of literariness or literary discourse.
• Neglect of Reader’s Role and Subjectivity: Todorov’s emphasis on the objective and scientific aspects of literary analysis may neglect the importance of the reader’s role and the subjectivity involved in interpreting texts. By focusing on abstract structures, his approach might overlook how individual readers bring their own experiences and perspectives to bear on their understanding of a text.
• Limited Engagement with Interdisciplinary Approaches: While Todorov acknowledges the relationship between poetics and other disciplines like linguistics and rhetoric, his approach could be critiqued for not fully engaging with interdisciplinary methods. Critics may argue that a more integrative approach, which combines insights from psychology, sociology, history, and other fields, would provide a richer and more comprehensive understanding of literature.
• Abstractness vs. Practical Application: The abstract nature of Todorov’s definition of poetics may be seen as impractical for actual literary analysis. Critics might argue that while theoretical rigor is important, it should also be balanced with practical tools that can be applied to the analysis of specific texts, something that Todorov’s approach might lack.
• Structuralist Limitations: Although Todorov attempts to distinguish poetics from structuralism, some critics might argue that his approach is still too closely aligned with structuralist thinking, which has been critiqued for its rigidity and failure to account for the dynamic and evolving nature of literature and language.
• Potential for Exclusion of Certain Literary Forms: Todorov’s framework may exclude or marginalize certain literary forms that do not easily conform to his model of literary discourse. For example, experimental literature or works that deliberately subvert traditional literary conventions might be difficult to analyze within the confines of Todorov’s poetics.
• Inaccessibility to Non-Specialists: The complex and abstract nature of Todorov’s theoretical framework might make it inaccessible to those who are not specialists in literary theory. This could limit the practical utility of his ideas for educators, students, and general readers who seek to engage with literature in a more straightforward and intuitive way.

Suggested Readings: “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov

1. Todorov, Tzvetan. Introduction to Poetics. Translated by Richard Howard. University of Georgia Press, 1981.
2. Todorov, Tzvetan. The Poetics of Prose. Translated by Richard Howard. Cornell University Press, 1977.
3. Todorov, Tzvetan. Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogical Principle. Translated by Wlad Godzich. University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
4. Frow, John. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 41, no. 1, 1982, pp. 112–13. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/430834. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.
5. LAUX, CAMERON. “The Other Todorov: Anthropology and Critical Humanism.” Paragraph, vol. 18, no. 2, 1995, pp. 194–209. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43263467 . Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.
6. Zbinden, Karine. “Todorov and Bakhtin.” Tzvetan Todorov: Thinker and Humanist, edited by Karine Zbinden and Henk de Berg, NED-New edition, Boydell & Brewer, 2020, pp. 109–26. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvrdf17k.10. Accessed 14 Aug. 2024.

Representative Quotations from “Definition Of Poetics” by Tzvetan Todorov with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Interpretation, which is sometimes also called exegesis… is defined… by its aim, which is to name the meaning of the text examined.”	This quotation captures Todorov’s definition of interpretation as a process focused on extracting and articulating the meaning of a literary text.
“It is impossible to interpret a work, literary or otherwise, for and in itself, without leaving it for a moment, without projecting it elsewhere than upon itself.”	Todorov emphasizes the inherent limitation of interpretation: to fully understand a text, one must consider it in relation to external contexts or frameworks.
“Poetics… does not seek to name meaning, but aims at a knowledge of the general laws that preside over the birth of each work.”	This quotation defines the core objective of poetics as the study of the abstract, general principles that govern the creation of literary works, rather than specific meanings.
“Literature is, in the strongest sense of the term, a product of language.”	Todorov highlights the intrinsic connection between literature and language, underscoring that any analysis of literature must involve linguistic considerations.
“The goal of this study is no longer to articulate a paraphrase… but to propose a theory of the structure and functioning of literary discourse.”	Todorov clarifies that poetics is concerned with theoretical understanding, aiming to establish a comprehensive framework for how literary discourse operates.
“Each work is therefore regarded only as the manifestation of an abstract and general structure, of which it is but one of the possible realizations.”	This quotation encapsulates the structuralist perspective in poetics, where individual literary works are seen as specific instances of broader, underlying structures.