“Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

“Introduction: Literariness and Linguistics by Vimala Herman first appeared in 1983 in the journal Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism. This seminal work examines the distinctions and intersections between literary and non-literary language, challenging the traditional boundaries that separate the two. Herman critically explores how “literariness” is often demarcated by unique linguistic properties—such as foregrounding and fictionalization—yet argues against viewing these as exclusively literary traits. Instead, she proposes that elements often attributed to literary language, such as metaphor and narrative structure, are ubiquitous across various forms of discourse, and their function is more nuanced than simply distinguishing literature. By incorporating insights from structural linguistics, pragmatics, and speech act theory, Herman dismantles binary oppositions of “literary” vs. “ordinary” language, suggesting a more fluid spectrum of language functions. Her work is significant for its influence on modern literary theory, encouraging a shift from essentialist views of literary language to a broader consideration of how language operates in context and across social functions.

Summary of “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

• Interdependence of Literary and Non-literary Language
  Herman argues that the concepts of “literary” and “non-literary” are interdependent, as defining one invariably involves engaging with the other (Herman, p. 99).
• Fictionality and Literariness in Language
  Traditional definitions of literary language emphasize “fictionality” and “literariness,” seen as mutually exclusive from “ordinary” language, which is referential and serves communicative purposes (p. 100).
• Role of Linguistics in Literary Analysis
  Modern linguistics, through structuralism and transformational grammar, has influenced the understanding of literary language. However, there is debate on its usefulness in interpreting literary texts (p. 100).
• Russian Formalist Perspective
  The Russian Formalists focused on “literariness,” highlighting “verbal devices” and “foregrounding” as central to literary language, emphasizing deviation from ordinary language norms to create poetic effects (p. 101-102).
• Concept of Foregrounding
  Foregrounding is a defining feature of poetic language, where linguistic elements are highlighted for aesthetic purposes, distinct from the communicative goal of standard language (Mukarovsky, p. 102).
• Jakobson’s Poetic Function
  Roman Jakobson’s model describes the “poetic function” as language focusing on the message itself. He argues that the poetic function is prevalent in all linguistic activities but is dominant in poetry (p. 104-105).
• Challenges to Literary/Non-literary Dichotomy
  Critics, such as Mary Louise Pratt, argue that the distinction between literary and non-literary language is circular, as it depends on pre-existing cultural recognition of a text as “literary” (p. 106).
• Functionalist View of Language
  Fowler suggests a functional definition of literature, viewing it as a socially recognized set of texts with institutional values, rather than possessing unique linguistic properties (Fowler, p. 111).
• Speech Act Theory in Literary Analysis
  Austin’s Speech Act Theory, especially the concept of performatives, is significant in understanding language in literature as action, with illocutionary force guiding interpretation beyond literal meaning (p. 113-115).
• Pragmatics and Implicature in Literary Discourse
  Grice’s concept of implicature and cooperative principles are applied to literary analysis, recognizing that readers infer meaning based on shared assumptions, which allows for layered interpretations in literary texts (p. 115-116).
• Multiplicity of Discourses in Society
  Herman concludes that literary language is one of many discourses in society. Rather than viewing literature as fundamentally separate, it should be considered within a continuum of diverse linguistic uses (p. 119).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

Term/Concept	Definition/Description	Explanation in the Text
Literariness	The quality or characteristics that define language as “literary,” typically including fictionality, aesthetic value, and deviation from ordinary language norms	Herman discusses how literariness has traditionally been used to differentiate literary from non-literary texts, with roots in Russian Formalism (p. 99-100).
Fictionality	The characteristic of language that makes it imaginary or fictional rather than referential to real-world events	Fictionality is often viewed as a defining trait of literary language, though Herman questions its necessity as a distinguishing factor (p. 100-101).
Foregrounding	A stylistic device that emphasizes certain elements of language to draw attention to the form itself, often through deviation from norms	Key to Formalist theory, foregrounding is seen as essential to poetic language, which foregrounds expression over pure communication (Mukarovsky, p. 101-102).
Poetic Function	Jakobson’s concept, where the focus of language is on the message itself rather than its referential meaning or communicative purpose	In Jakobson’s model, the poetic function emphasizes the self-referential aspect of language in literature, where the form is prioritized (Jakobson, p. 104).
Speech Act Theory	A theory that views language as performative, where utterances do more than convey information; they perform actions	Introduced by J.L. Austin and expanded by John Searle, Speech Act Theory is applied to literary discourse to analyze language as a form of action (p. 112-113).
Illocutionary Force	The intended function of an utterance within Speech Act Theory, such as a command, request, or assertion	Herman uses this concept to examine how literary language can perform different actions, beyond literal meaning (p. 113-114).
Implicature	The implied meanings derived from context, going beyond the literal meaning of words, often guided by conversational principles	Drawn from Grice’s principles, implicature explains how readers infer unstated meanings in literary texts (p. 115-116).
Defamiliarization	Making the familiar seem unfamiliar to enhance perception and provoke thought	Often achieved through foregrounding, defamiliarization is a technique in literature that disrupts automatic perception (related to Shklovsky’s ideas, p. 101).
Competence and Performance	Chomsky’s concepts: “competence” is the ideal speaker’s knowledge of language rules, while “performance” is the actual use of language in context	Herman highlights how these concepts influence the idea of literary language as separate from everyday use (p. 109-110).
Binary Opposition	A structuralist concept describing paired opposites, like literary/non-literary, which often reinforce hierarchical distinctions	Herman critiques the literary/non-literary binary, arguing for a spectrum of discourses rather than strict oppositions (p. 119).
Generative Grammar	A linguistic theory focused on rule-based sentence generation, often applied to explain deviations in poetic language	Early stylisticians used generative grammar to analyze “deviant” literary structures, though Herman questions its applicability (p. 105).
Cline of Literariness	A gradational view of literariness, positioning texts on a spectrum rather than categorizing them as strictly literary or non-literary	Proposed by Carter and Nash, this concept challenges the binary approach, suggesting a continuum of literariness based on semantic density (p. 120).
Pragmatics	The study of language in context, focusing on how meaning is constructed through interaction and social factors	Herman advocates using pragmatics in literary analysis to better understand language’s social functions within texts (p. 110-111).
Langue and Parole	Saussure’s distinction between “langue” (the abstract language system) and “parole” (individual speech acts or utterances)	Herman discusses the misuse of this concept in literary studies, noting the need to see literary language as part of the broader language system (p. 106-107).
Contextual Variation	Differences in language use across different contexts, reflecting social, functional, and institutional norms	Emphasizing variation, Herman argues that literary language should be seen in relation to other discourses, each with unique constraints and purposes (p. 109-110).
Display and Tellability	Acts governing literary discourse in Pratt’s framework, where texts aim to engage and present narratives worth sharing	Part of Pratt’s speech situation theory, these acts relate to the communicative purposes behind literary texts (Pratt, p. 117).

Contribution of “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman to Literary Theory/Theories

Theory/Framework	Contribution by Herman	Reference in the Text
Russian Formalism and Prague School	Critiques the binary approach to literariness as inherent in language, suggesting instead that all language can be literary if used appropriately. Emphasizes that literary language need not differ from ordinary language but is defined by context and usage.	Herman addresses Russian Formalist views, noting that “poetic language becomes the systematic violation of the norm” (p. 102).
Speech Act Theory	Applies J.L. Austin’s and John Searle’s concepts to literature, positing that literary language functions performatively, with speech acts serving literary purposes. This approach suggests that context determines whether language is considered literary.	“The illocutionary act has come to be regarded as the most crucial” for understanding literary language’s performative power (p. 113).
Jakobson’s Poetic Function	Explores Roman Jakobson’s idea that the poetic function is not exclusive to poetry. Argues against using Jakobson’s concept to strictly separate literary language, proposing that the poetic function exists across all linguistic domains.	Jakobson’s function of “focus on the message for its own sake” (p. 103) is used to examine language beyond poetry.
Structuralism and Generative Grammar	Criticizes the application of generative grammar to define a “literary grammar,” showing how this approach fails to encapsulate literary language’s variability and adaptability.	Herman points out the “inadequacy of formal modes of explanation in considerations of ‘poetic language'” (p. 106).
Pragmatics	Emphasizes the role of pragmatics in interpreting literariness, moving beyond syntax and phonology to include sociolinguistic and contextual elements, which she argues provide a fuller understanding of literary language.	“Language in use, till recently, has been regarded as the poor relation to language as system” (p. 110).
Grice’s Conversational Implicature	Applies Grice’s maxims to literary texts, demonstrating how implicature and inference play a role in reader interpretation. Suggests that literariness is not inherent but arises through shared interpretive frameworks.	Herman discusses the “co-operative principle” and how it governs meaning in literature just as it does in conversation (p. 115).
Foregrounding	Discusses how foregrounding, a concept from Russian Formalism, applies across discourses, not only in literature. This broadens the scope of literariness, suggesting that stylistic devices commonly seen as “literary” are simply modes of language usage.	“Foregrounding…is not confined to literary language alone” (p. 107), Herman argues, challenging Formalist exclusivity.
Cline of Literariness	Proposes a spectrum or “cline” of literariness, arguing against a binary division between literary and non-literary language. Suggests that literariness varies by “semantic density” across different discourses.	Herman and colleagues propose that “literariness” is seen as a multi-layered phenomenon rather than a strict category (p. 120).

Examples of Critiques Through “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

Literary Work	Example of Critique Using Herman’s Framework	Relevant Concept from Herman
“The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald	By analyzing the metaphor-rich language used to describe Gatsby’s parties and the “green light,” we can see how the language itself serves not merely to communicate events but to create a layered, symbolic experience for the reader. In Herman’s terms, the “foregrounding” of colors and symbols constructs an alternate reality, making it emblematic rather than literal.	Foregrounding: Herman argues that poetic language often highlights expressive elements over straightforward meaning.
“Beloved” by Toni Morrison	Morrison’s use of fragmented narrative and varied voices reflects a complex “speech act” that symbolizes the traumatic history of slavery. Herman’s ideas on speech acts help illuminate how Morrison’s text engages readers with implied meanings that rely on shared cultural memory rather than explicit statements, positioning the reader as an active participant in constructing the narrative’s meaning.	Speech Act Theory: Herman’s application of speech acts can illustrate how Morrison’s text performs cultural memory.
“Waiting for Godot” by Samuel Beckett	In this play, Beckett uses repetition and nonsensical dialogue to challenge conventional language, engaging with Herman’s concept of language variation and challenging the norm. The deviation from standard language functions emphasizes existential ambiguity and represents language in its least communicative, most performative form, illustrating Herman’s view that literariness can lie in subversion.	Variation and Foregrounding: Beckett’s deviations serve to foreground language’s limits, reflecting Herman’s view on variance.
“Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen	Austen’s social critiques are embedded in the subtleties of polite conversation, a perfect example of Herman’s emphasis on pragmatics. Through conversational implicature, characters imply social status and personal judgments subtly. Elizabeth Bennet’s dialogues, rich with irony and indirect requests, are pragmatic strategies that mirror social interactions while also revealing layers of social commentary.	Pragmatics and Implicature: Herman’s insights on context-specific interpretation align with Austen’s social critique through language.

Criticism Against “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

• Reliance on Structuralist Foundations
  Herman’s work heavily references structuralist ideas, which some critics argue limits its adaptability to post-structuralist or contemporary perspectives. Her reliance on theories from the Russian Formalists and Prague School may be seen as restrictive, especially in light of more recent, fluid definitions of literariness.
• Overemphasis on Linguistic Formalism
  The focus on linguistic formalism, such as syntax, phonology, and structural patterns, may sideline other important aspects of literary study, such as emotional resonance, reader response, and cultural context. This approach risks viewing literature too mechanically, rather than as a living, evolving art form.
• Neglect of Reader-Response Perspectives
  While Herman acknowledges the importance of context and pragmatics, her framework lacks an in-depth engagement with reader-response theory, which emphasizes how individual readers’ interpretations and experiences shape meaning. This omission might be seen as a gap in a theory meant to understand “literariness.”
• Challenges to the Universality of Pragmatic Analysis
  Herman applies linguistic pragmatics broadly, yet some critics argue that this generalization does not adequately account for the distinctiveness of literature. Treating literary language as merely another form of “language in use” may dilute the unique ways literature engages with meaning, metaphor, and imagination.
• Ambiguity in Defining ‘Literariness’
  Although Herman critiques the binary distinction between literary and non-literary language, her own definitions of “literariness” remain somewhat ambiguous. Critics argue that the lack of a clear, actionable definition can make her framework difficult to apply consistently across different literary works.
• Limited Engagement with Cultural and Ideological Contexts
  Herman’s linguistic approach to literary analysis may overlook the influence of cultural and ideological factors that shape literature. By focusing predominantly on the language mechanics, she might neglect the sociopolitical, historical, or ethical dimensions that deeply influence literary texts and their interpretations.

Representative Quotations from “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman with Explanation

1. “Literariness as a defining property of the literary has been most fully investigated with relation to language” (Herman, 1983, p. 100).
   • This sentence underscores how the concept of “literariness” is primarily explored through linguistic study, emphasizing its foundational role in defining literary language.
2. “Literary language is fictional, and therefore, non-referential, while non-fictional language, or ‘ordinary’ language, is defined by the property of reference” (Herman, 1983, p. 100).
   • Herman distinguishes literary language as creating its own realm of meaning, contrasting with factual, referential language.
3. “The role of modern linguistics, first structural, then transformational, has had an uneasy history, either as basic to the definition of literary language…or of no value at all” (Herman, 1983, p. 101).
   • This quote reflects the contentious relationship between linguistics and literary studies, particularly as scholars debate the relevance of structural and transformational linguistics.
4. “Foregrounding achieves maximum intensity to the extent of pushing communication into the background as the objective of expression” (Herman, 1983, p. 102).
   • Here, Herman discusses “foregrounding” as a feature where language is highlighted for its aesthetic qualities, allowing expression itself to take precedence over straightforward communication.
5. “The set (Einstellung) towards the message as such, focus on the message for its own sake, is the POETIC function of language” (Jakobson, as cited in Herman, 1983, p. 103).
   • Quoting Jakobson, Herman explains the poetic function of language as one that prioritizes the form and structure of the message, apart from its referential content.
6. “Language in literary use shares all the properties and processes of the medium in which it is constructed, initially” (Herman, 1983, p. 107).
   • This statement reinforces Herman’s view that literary language does not exist in isolation from general language structures and norms; it emerges from these shared properties.
7. “The formalist program for a literary language was originally motivated by the desire to separate literary studies from its traditional orientations” (Herman, 1983, p. 105).
   • Herman highlights the intention of formalism to establish a distinct study of literary language, distancing it from fields like psychology, biography, and history.
8. “The set of rules appropriate to a language…can also be presumed to have inventories of variable forms to correlate with appropriate functions in contexts of use” (Herman, 1983, p. 110).
   • This reflects Herman’s recognition of language’s adaptability, where linguistic forms vary contextually to fulfill different communicative functions.
9. “Both defamiliarization and patterning could be restored to considerations of literary discourse, as the functional processes they are” (Herman, 1983, p. 120).
   • Herman advocates for understanding literary devices such as defamiliarization and patterning as functional aspects of literary discourse, each serving specific communicative purposes.
10. “Patterning exists in many discourses…its literary use is one among many” (Herman, 1983, p. 119).
    • Herman observes that while patterning is central to literary texts, it also appears in various discourses, functioning in diverse communicative ways.

Suggested Readings: “Introduction: Literariness and linguistics” by Vimala Herman

1. Herman, V. (1983). Introduction: Literariness and linguistics. Prose Studies, 6(2), 99–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/01440358308586189
2. Carter, R., & Nash, W. (1983). Language and literariness. Prose Studies, 6(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01440358308586190