“How Ordinary Is Ordinary Language?” by Stanley E. Fish: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “How Ordinary Is Ordinary Language?” by Stanley E. Fish

“How Ordinary Is Ordinary Language?” by Stanley E. Fish first appeared in 1973 in the New Literary History journal. This essay is considered a pivotal piece in the development of New Criticism and reader-response theory. Fish argues that language is not merely a neutral tool for conveying meaning but is actively shaped by the reader’s interpretive strategies. This idea challenges traditional notions of authorial intent and objective meaning, emphasizing the subjective nature of literary interpretation. Fish’s essay has had a significant impact on literary theory, influencing discussions about the relationship between the text, the reader, and the cultural context.

Summary of “How Ordinary Is Ordinary Language?” by Stanley E. Fish

• Linguistics and Literary Criticism: A Lingering Debate Fish begins by addressing the long-standing conflict between linguists and literary critics, a debate ongoing for over 20 years. Linguists assert that literature is fundamentally language and therefore, linguistic analysis is relevant. In contrast, critics argue that linguistic analyses miss essential elements of literature, particularly what makes it unique (“linguists have failed to distinguish clearly between the structure of language and the structure of literature” – p. 43). This mutual critique has led to a stalemate in reconciling the two fields.
• The Misconception of Ordinary Language Fish highlights that both linguists and critics err by assuming a distinction between ordinary and literary language. This split trivializes both, as ordinary language is stripped of its human values, purpose, and context, reducing it to mere form (“the very act of distinguishing between ordinary and literary language, because of what it assumes, leads necessarily to an inadequate account of both” – p. 45). Fish contends that separating ordinary and literary language impoverishes our understanding of both domains.
• Trivialization of Ordinary Language By excluding purpose, value, and intention from ordinary language, it becomes sterile, a mere system devoid of human essence. Literature, then, is relegated to a marginal status where its deviation from this impoverished language is seen as inferior or parasitic (Fish critiques this as “deviation theories always trivialize the norm and therefore trivialize everything else” – p. 44). This binary approach reduces the value of both language and literature, imposing artificial constraints on their interpretation.
• The Failure of Deviation Theories Fish critiques what he terms “deviation theories,” which separate ordinary and literary language by designating literary language as a deviation from the norm. This categorization, according to Fish, trivializes both the norm (ordinary language) and what deviates from it (literary language). The consequence is a diminished understanding of the richness inherent in both language forms.
• Restoring Value to Ordinary Language Fish argues for a new perspective that restores human content to language, rejecting the trivializing effect of treating language as a formal system without values. He draws on speech act theory and philosophical semantics to propose that ordinary language, far from being devoid of human values, is deeply infused with them. This approach offers a way to view literature not as a deviation but as an enriched form of language, full of human purpose and intention (“a theory which restores human content to language also restores legitimate status to literature” – p. 50).
• Implications for Linguistics and Literary Theory Fish suggests that embracing the human and intentional aspects of ordinary language opens up possibilities for new methods of literary analysis. Literature is no longer a special category isolated from everyday discourse but an integral part of language, shaped by the same values and purposes that govern human communication (“what characterizes literature is not formal properties, but an attitude—always within our power to assume—toward properties that belong by constitutive right to language” – p. 52).
• Conclusion: Literature as Framed Language Ultimately, Fish concludes that literature is distinguished not by its inherent linguistic features but by the frame we impose on it, signaling our intent to examine language with heightened awareness (“literature is language around which we have drawn a frame, a frame that indicates a decision to regard with a particular self-consciousness the resources language has always possessed” – p. 52). This redefinition collapses the binary distinction between ordinary and literary language, positioning both as part of a continuum rather than separate entities.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “How Ordinary Is Ordinary Language?” by Stanley E. Fish

Term/Concept	Explanation
Ordinary Language	Refers to language as it is used in everyday communication, often contrasted with literary language. Fish critiques its reduction to a formal system devoid of human values.
Literary Language	The language used in literature, often seen as distinct from ordinary language. Fish challenges the notion that literary language deviates from ordinary language.
Deviation Theory	The idea that literary language is a deviation from the norm of ordinary language. Fish argues that this trivializes both types of language.
Speech Act Theory	A philosophical theory (rooted in the work of J.L. Austin and John Searle) that sees utterances as actions rather than mere statements. Fish uses this theory to argue that all language is permeated with human intention and purpose.
Formalism	An approach to literary theory that emphasizes the form or structure of a text over its content or meaning. Fish critiques this focus on form as limiting the understanding of language and literature.
Message-Plus Theory	A theory of literature that sees literary texts as conveying messages more effectively or beautifully than ordinary language. Fish criticizes this as prioritizing style over content.
Message-Minus Theory	A view of literature that emphasizes style and form, often at the expense of content or message. Fish sees this as equally limiting.
Positivism	A belief in objective, observable facts that underpin both linguistic and literary analysis. Fish critiques this as ignoring the human values embedded in language.
Performative Language	Language that accomplishes an action (e.g., promising, ordering) rather than merely describing something. Fish references this concept to argue that all language, including ordinary language, is performative.
Norm	The idea of a standard or conventional form of language (ordinary language). Fish argues that deviation theories establish a norm that diminishes both ordinary and literary language.
Framing	The act of drawing attention to language by framing it in a particular way, often seen in literature. Fish argues that literature is distinguished by the frame we impose around language, not by inherent linguistic properties.
Autonomy of Criticism	The idea that literary criticism operates independently from other disciplines, like linguistics. Fish critiques this separation as artificial and unproductive.

Contribution of “How Ordinary Is Ordinary Language?” by Stanley E. Fish to Literary Theory/Theories

Examples of Critiques Through “How Ordinary Is Ordinary Language?” by Stanley E. Fish

Literary Work	Traditional Critique	Critique Using Fish’s Framework
“A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift	Typically analyzed for its satirical content and use of irony, showing how Swift criticizes British policies toward Ireland through exaggerated, grotesque proposals.	Fish’s critique would focus on how the human intentions and values embedded in Swift’s language are inseparable from its ordinary usage. The satire becomes powerful because it uses “ordinary” language for extraordinary human critique, uniting purpose, values, and intentions with the language itself.
“Ulysses” by James Joyce	Often analyzed through formalistic or structuralist lenses, focusing on Joyce’s complex narrative techniques and stream-of-consciousness writing style.	Fish would argue against viewing Joyce’s language as a deviation from the norm. Instead, he would suggest that Joyce’s language is an example of how ordinary language is extraordinary in conveying deeply human experiences, like consciousness and memory. Joyce’s form and content are unified by purpose and value.
“The Faerie Queene” by Edmund Spenser	Traditionally critiqued for its allegorical content and use of archaic language, often analyzed for the moral and religious messages encoded in its elaborate structure.	Fish might critique the tendency to regard Spenser’s work as formally difficult or deviational. He would emphasize that Spenser’s language reflects the human purposes and values at play in his moral allegory, and that understanding these values unites the language and meaning without seeing the language as distinct from the human content.
“The Waste Land” by T.S. Eliot	Seen through a Modernist lens, it is typically critiqued for its fragmentary structure and allusions to classical and contemporary texts, representing a fragmented modern consciousness.	Rather than focusing on the fragmentation as a formal deviation, Fish’s critique would emphasize how Eliot’s ordinary language reflects extraordinary human concerns about alienation and despair. He would argue that Eliot’s style is not a departure from ordinary language but is deeply tied to expressing human experience in modernity.
“How Do I Love Thee” by Elizabeth Barrett Browning	Frequently analyzed as a romantic love poem, it is traditionally viewed through its emotional expressiveness and its adherence to sonnet form.	Fish would challenge the notion that lyric poetry such as this can be separated from ordinary language. He might focus on how Browning’s poem uses language imbued with purpose and intention, making it part of the continuum of everyday communication rather than a deviation. The poetic language and emotional expression are united with ordinary human values.
“An Essay on Man” by Alexander Pope	Critiqued for its didactic tone and focus on philosophical arguments about human nature, often seen as a blend of poetry and rational discourse.	Fish would reject the idea that Pope’s rational arguments reduce the work’s literary status. He would argue that the values and purposes in Pope’s writing (exploring human existence) are inseparable from the language, demonstrating that ordinary and literary language are united by human intention.
“The Rape of the Lock” by Alexander Pope	Analyzed as a mock-epic, it uses the grand style of classical epics to satirize trivial contemporary events, particularly in social satire.	Fish would critique how this satirical work demonstrates that ordinary language is inherently literary. The high and low elements are both part of a unified language that serves human purposes—here, satirical and moral commentary. The work’s playfulness with form does not separate it from ordinary language but exemplifies how all language is embedded with purpose.

Criticism Against “How Ordinary Is Ordinary Language?” by Stanley E. Fish

• Oversimplification of Literary-Linguistic Distinctions
  Critics might argue that Fish oversimplifies the established distinction between literary and ordinary language. By collapsing the two categories, he potentially overlooks important formal, structural, and stylistic differences that distinguish literary works from everyday speech.
• Neglect of Formalism’s Contributions
  Fish’s critique of formalism can be seen as dismissive of the valuable insights that formal analysis provides. Formalist approaches allow for a deep understanding of the technical elements that contribute to a text’s meaning, and Fish’s rejection might be viewed as undermining this aspect of literary scholarship.
• Undervaluing the Role of Aesthetic Experience
  Some critics could claim that Fish diminishes the aesthetic value of literature by focusing too heavily on its embedded human purposes and intentions. By merging literary and ordinary language, Fish may downplay the unique aesthetic experiences that literature offers, which are often central to its value.
• Ambiguity in the “Framing” Concept
  Fish’s idea that literature is created through the “frame” readers impose on language has been critiqued as vague and subjective. Critics argue that it is unclear how this framing process operates, and it leaves too much open to interpretation, making it difficult to apply consistently across literary criticism.
• Overreliance on Reader-Response Theory
  Fish’s emphasis on the reader’s role in making language “literary” aligns with reader-response theory, but some scholars criticize this approach for giving too much agency to the reader. This focus potentially neglects the text’s inherent qualities and undermines the importance of authorial intention.
• Failure to Address the Practical Limits of Linguistics in Literary Criticism
  While Fish critiques linguistic approaches for failing to account for human purposes in language, critics may argue that Fish does not fully address the practical limitations of using linguistics as a tool for literary criticism. Linguistics, as a discipline, might not be designed to capture the aesthetic and symbolic dimensions of literary works.
• Challenges to the Elimination of Literary Status
  Fish’s assertion that literature does not hold a special status might be criticized for eroding the distinctive cultural and intellectual value that has traditionally been afforded to literary works. This claim could be seen as reducing literature’s unique role in society by merging it too closely with ordinary language.
• Resistance from Structuralist and Post-Structuralist Thinkers
  Structuralist and post-structuralist theorists might argue that Fish’s rejection of linguistic structures in favor of human intentions overlooks the importance of deeper linguistic patterns and structures that underlie both ordinary and literary language. Fish’s approach may seem too focused on external human contexts rather than internal textual structures.
• Limited Applicability Across Genres
  Some critics might argue that Fish’s theory does not account for the diversity of literary genres. For example, works of experimental fiction or poetry that deliberately play with language in non-ordinary ways may not fit comfortably within Fish’s unified framework of language.

Representative Quotations from “How Ordinary Is Ordinary Language?” by Stanley E. Fish with Explanation

1. “Deviation theories always trivialize the norm and therefore trivialize everything else.”
   Fish critiques the common distinction between ordinary and literary language, arguing that categorizing literary language as a deviation from the norm reduces the significance of both ordinary and literary language (p. 44).
2. “The task of the linguist… is limited to describing those formal components of a literary text which are accessible to him, but the linguist cannot judge the value of these various features; only the literary critic can do that.”
   Fish references the linguist’s constrained role in literary criticism, critiquing the positivist assumption that linguistic analysis can exclude value judgments, which are essential for literary studies (p. 45).
3. “Ordinary language is extraordinary because at its heart is precisely that realm of values, intentions, and purposes which is often assumed to be the exclusive property of literature.”
   Fish argues that ordinary language is not a neutral medium but is deeply intertwined with human purpose, making it as complex and value-laden as literary language (p. 51).
4. “What characterizes literature then is not formal properties, but an attitude—always within our power to assume—toward properties that belong by constitutive right to language.”
   Fish challenges formalist approaches to defining literature by arguing that literature is defined by the reader’s frame of mind, not by intrinsic formal properties (p. 52).
5. “The very act of distinguishing between ordinary and literary language, because of what it assumes, leads necessarily to an inadequate account of both.”
   Fish asserts that creating a dichotomy between ordinary and literary language results in an impoverished understanding of each, as both are interwoven with human values and intentions (p. 45).
6. “By accepting the positivist assumption that ordinary language is available to a purely formal description, both sides assure that their investigations of literary language will be fruitless and arid.”
   Fish critiques the positivist notion that ordinary language can be analyzed purely through form, without considering its human content. This leads, he argues, to an incomplete understanding of literary language as well (p. 44).
7. “Criticism, in its present form, is forced to choose between separating literature from life or reintegrating it with the impoverished notion of life implicit in the norm of ordinary language.”
   Fish identifies a central problem in contemporary criticism: either treat literature as separate from life or reintegrate it with a shallow understanding of ordinary language (p. 48).
8. “In short, what philosophical semantics and the philosophy of speech acts are telling us is that ordinary language is extraordinary.”
   Drawing on speech act theory, Fish argues that all language is imbued with human purpose and meaning, collapsing the distinction between ordinary and literary language (p. 51).
9. “A theory which restores human content to language also restores legitimate status to literature by reuniting it with a norm that is no longer trivialized.”
   Fish suggests that if we view ordinary language as rich with human content, literature too can be seen as part of this continuity, rather than as something deviant or lesser (p. 51).
10. “All aesthetics… are local and conventional rather than universal, reflecting a collective decision as to what will count as literature.”
    Fish challenges universal aesthetic standards, arguing that judgments about what constitutes literature are culturally constructed and subject to change (p. 53).

Suggested Readings: “How Ordinary Is Ordinary Language?” by Stanley E. Fish

1. Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press, 1962.
2. Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, 1969.
3. Jakobson, Roman. “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” Style in Language, edited by Thomas A. Sebeok, MIT Press, 1960, pp. 350–377. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262010550.003.0029
4. Ohmann, Richard. “Speech Acts and the Definition of Literature.” Philosophy and Rhetoric, vol. 4, no. 1, 1971, pp. 1–19.
   URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40236802
5. Barthes, Roland. Writing Degree Zero. Translated by Annette Lavers and Colin Smith, Hill and Wang, 1967.
6. Fowler, Roger. Linguistics and the Novel. Methuen, 1977.