“Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

“Language and Literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash first appeared in Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism in 1983, published by Routledge. This seminal work examines the characteristics that distinguish literary language from other forms of communication, exploring the elusive question, “What is literature?” The authors argue against a rigid binary between literary and non-literary language, suggesting instead that literariness exists along a continuum, or “cline,” where elements of literary style can appear even in “ordinary” language. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of how stylistic effects and semantic density contribute to literariness. Carter and Nash emphasize that literariness is not merely about specific vocabulary or syntax but is found in the text’s ability to engage readers in multi-layered, polysemic interpretations. The text is thus self-contained, encouraging readers to explore meanings generated within its boundaries, which marks it as “sovereign” and distinct from functional, transactional texts. Their work is influential in literary theory, as it challenges traditional boundaries and enriches the study of prose by considering linguistic and stylistic elements as fundamental to literary appreciation and critique.

Summary of “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

• Defining Literary Language: Carter and Nash argue that understanding what makes language “literary” is central to literary studies, as it addresses the essential question: “What is literature?” They critique the conventional literary-critical approach, which often involves interpreting established texts, proposing instead that literary language merits a dedicated investigation (Carter & Nash, 1983, p. 123).
• Polarity in Language: The authors reject a strict division between literary and non-literary language, which, they claim, unnecessarily polarizes language types. They advocate for viewing literary qualities along a “cline” or continuum, recognizing that traits of literariness can appear in what might traditionally be considered “ordinary” or “scientific” language (p. 124).
• Absence of Intrinsic Literary Properties: The authors assert that no inherent property makes language literary, arguing that while some words or phrases are associated with a “literary lexicon,” they do not independently constitute literariness. This is seen even in works with rich language structures, which may lack “literariness” on their own (p. 124-125).
• Deviations from Norms: Many theories of literary language rely on deviations from linguistic norms (e.g., syntactic in e.e. cummings, phonological in Hopkins), yet Carter and Nash find such approaches lacking as they fail to account for the multi-layered stylistic interplay that gives rise to literariness (p. 125).
• Semantic Density and Displaced Interaction: They propose “semantic density” as a marker of literariness, where meanings are layered and interconnected. They also introduce the concept of “displaced interaction,” wherein literary texts create indirect or complex interactions between author and reader, contrasting with straightforward transactional texts (p. 125-126).
• Textual Sovereignty: A key feature of literariness, according to Carter and Nash, is the “sovereignty” of the text—its ability to generate meaning independently without needing external references or prior reader knowledge. This self-contained quality distinguishes literary texts from other types, like instructional manuals (p. 130).
• Re-Registration and Polysemy: Literary language often re-registers non-literary expressions in new, symbolic contexts, fostering “polysemy” or multiple layers of meaning. This richness allows literature to operate on various levels simultaneously, thus enhancing its interpretative depth and literary value (p. 132-133).
• Broadening Literary Criticism: The authors call for a shift in English studies toward “linguistic criticism,” focusing on detailed linguistic analysis across different genres, not only conventionally literary ones. This approach, they believe, would deepen understanding and appreciation of diverse texts’ stylistic qualities (p. 130-131

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation from Text
Literary Language	A form of language characterized by unique stylistic and semantic qualities.	Carter and Nash explore how “literary language” differs from ordinary language by its complex, layered meanings and unique structures (p. 123-124).
Cline of Literariness	A continuum that places language along a spectrum from ordinary to highly literary.	Instead of a strict division, literary qualities exist along a spectrum, with degrees of literariness across language types (p. 124).
Semantic Density	The quality of language having layered or complex meanings that contribute to literariness.	They use “semantic density” to indicate texts where meanings are richly interwoven, enhancing literary quality (p. 125).
Displaced Interaction	A form of indirect interaction between author and reader, often found in literary texts.	In literary texts, the interaction between author and reader is not straightforward; instead, meaning is layered and indirect, creating depth (p. 125-126).
Textual Sovereignty	The ability of a text to generate meaning independently, without relying on external references.	Literary texts are “sovereign,” meaning they do not depend on external aids (e.g., diagrams) to convey meaning, unlike instructional texts (p. 130).
Re-Registration	The adaptation of non-literary language or expressions within a literary context to give new, symbolic meaning.	Carter and Nash discuss how words from non-literary contexts can be adapted in literature, creating new meanings through re-registration (p. 132-133).
Polysemy	The presence of multiple meanings within a text or word, contributing to interpretative richness.	Literary texts often have polysemic structures, where multiple meanings exist simultaneously, allowing varied interpretations (p. 130).
Monosemy	The opposite of polysemy; language that has a single, clear meaning.	Found in functional texts (e.g., manuals or contracts), where language serves a specific purpose with no additional layers (p. 127).
Literary Lexicon	A set of words or phrases commonly associated with literary language.	Although some words or phrases are traditionally viewed as “literary,” Carter and Nash argue they don’t inherently confer literariness (p. 124-125).
Functional Language	Language used for practical or transactional purposes, often direct and unlayered.	Functional language is marked by single-purpose usage, such as instructional or contractual language, which contrasts with literary style (p. 127).
Norm and Deviation	The concept that literary language deviates from linguistic norms to create artistic effects.	Carter and Nash critique theories that limit literariness to deviations from norms, arguing for a more complex view (p. 125).
Self-Referentiality	A quality of literature where the text displays awareness of its own conventions and techniques.	Seen in passages where a text reflects on its own stylistic elements, adding a meta-level of meaning, which is a unique feature of literariness (p. 136).
Register Borrowing	The practice of adopting terms from specialized language fields (e.g., legal, technical) within literary texts.	Literary texts often incorporate specialized language for symbolic or aesthetic purposes, blending different registers creatively (p. 130).
Stylistic Effects	The cumulative impact of linguistic choices, such as syntax, phonology, and diction, that create a unique literary style.	Carter and Nash argue that the literariness of a text is due to multi-layered stylistic effects rather than isolated lexical choices (p. 125).

Contribution of “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash to Literary Theory/Theories

Theory	Contribution of Carter & Nash	Reference from the Article
Formalism and Structuralism	Carter and Nash challenge the formalist tendency to view literary language as entirely distinct from ordinary language. They argue instead that “literary language” operates along a continuum or cline, suggesting that elements of literariness can be found even in ordinary language.	“We hold that the division between literary language…and other kinds of language…is a harmful one” (p. 124).
Stylistics	Their work emphasizes the stylistic effects of literary language, encouraging a multi-layered linguistic analysis over a focus on isolated lexical or syntactic features. This approach enhances the understanding of stylistic choices across genres, not only in conventionally literary texts.	“Literariness in language…comes from the simultaneous operation and interrelation of effects at different levels” (p. 125).
Reader-Response Theory	Carter and Nash introduce displaced interaction, where the literary text becomes a space for indirect, interpretative engagement between author and reader. This interaction reflects reader-response theory’s emphasis on the active role of readers in co-creating meaning within texts.	“The interaction between author and reader is thus deferred or displaced, the text presenting an intermediate stage” (p. 139).
Deconstruction	They explore the idea of polysemy, or multiple layers of meaning, which resonates with deconstruction’s emphasis on the instability of meaning in texts. Carter and Nash argue that literary texts are inherently polysemic, allowing for interpretative openness and ambiguity.	“The ‘obscure’ literary text…is difficult by reason of its polysemic structure” (p. 140).
Post-Structuralism	In their critique of binary distinctions (e.g., literary vs. non-literary language), they align with post-structuralism’s questioning of rigid structures. They argue that literary language should be understood as part of a continuum rather than an isolated category.	“We prefer to think of ‘literary language’ as existing along a cline or gradation” (p. 124).
Linguistic Criticism	They propose linguistic criticism as a discipline, distinct from traditional literary stylistics, where detailed linguistic analysis is applied across genres. This approach extends stylistics into a broader critique applicable to both literary and non-literary texts.	“…students of English studies will practice linguistic criticism…to a range of texts…not only those conventionally marked as literary” (p. 130).
Intertextuality	By emphasizing re-registration, where language from non-literary registers is adapted in literature, Carter and Nash show how texts are enriched through intertextuality. This borrowing across genres creates new symbolic meanings, enhancing the interpretative possibilities of a text.	“…restructuring of technical terms so they enter into new relationships and acquire…symbolic value in the context of the literary work” (p. 130).

Examples of Critiques Through “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

Literary Work	Critique Using Carter & Nash’s Concepts	Relevant Concept from Carter & Nash
James Joyce’s Ulysses	Joyce’s use of polysemic language in Ulysses creates layers of meaning, encouraging readers to interpret the text through multiple perspectives, which aligns with Carter & Nash’s idea that literary language is inherently multi-layered, enabling expansive interpretative possibilities.	Polysemy: “The ‘obscure’ literary text…is difficult by reason of its polysemic structure” (p. 140).
Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse	Woolf’s narrative style employs displaced interaction, where the reader interprets indirect dialogues and internal monologues, enhancing the immersive literary experience. This aligns with Carter & Nash’s idea of indirect reader-author interaction in literary texts.	Displaced Interaction: “The interaction between author and reader is thus deferred or displaced…” (p. 139).
Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot	Beckett’s minimalist language reveals semantic density, where every line is charged with multiple meanings, creating a depth that compensates for the sparse dialogue. This concept resonates with Carter & Nash’s idea of condensed meaning as a hallmark of literariness.	Semantic Density: “Literariness in language…has something to do with the existence of what we term ‘semantic density’” (p. 125).
George Orwell’s 1984	Orwell’s integration of register borrowing (e.g., bureaucratic language in “Newspeak”) reflects Carter & Nash’s concept of re-registration, as he uses non-literary language to create an oppressive narrative style, enhancing the novel’s symbolic meaning.	Register Borrowing / Re-Registration: “…restructuring of technical terms so they enter into new relationships…” (p. 130).

Criticism Against “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

• Overemphasis on Linguistic Analysis: Some critics argue that Carter and Nash’s focus on linguistic elements, such as syntax and vocabulary, may sideline the emotional and thematic elements of literature that are central to literary appreciation and interpretation.
• Lack of Cultural Context Consideration: The framework presented may be critiqued for not adequately considering how cultural, historical, and societal factors influence what is perceived as “literary” or “non-literary,” which can vary significantly across different audiences.
• Dismissal of Norm-Deviation Framework: Carter and Nash challenge the traditional notion of literary language as a deviation from norms, yet some critics believe this framework is useful for distinguishing unique literary styles, as it highlights the ways authors subvert or innovate upon linguistic norms.
• Broad Definition of Literariness: Their concept of a “cline of literariness” can be seen as too broad or inclusive, potentially diminishing the uniqueness of literature by blurring distinctions between literary and non-literary texts.
• Insufficient Attention to Reader Response: While Carter and Nash introduce “displaced interaction” between author and reader, critics might argue that their approach does not fully explore how individual reader interpretations and personal engagement contribute to the perception of literariness.
• Limited Practical Application Across Genres: Although they propose that their model applies across genres, some might find the framework better suited to certain types of prose rather than poetry, drama, or other literary forms where structural and stylistic norms vary greatly.
• Reduction of Literariness to Linguistic Features: Critics could argue that their analysis risks reducing literariness solely to linguistic features, overlooking how narrative techniques, genre conventions, and plot structure also contribute to the literary qualities of a text.
• Insufficient Consideration of Authorial Intent: Some literary theorists might criticize the work for focusing more on textual analysis than on authorial intent, which can be essential in understanding why specific stylistic or lexical choices are made.

Representative Quotations from “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“We hold that the division between literary language and other kinds of language is a harmful one.”	Carter and Nash challenge traditional divisions between “literary” and “non-literary” language, arguing that this dichotomy restricts understanding of language’s full potential and value.
“We prefer to think of ‘literary language’ as existing along a cline or gradation.”	This statement introduces their idea of a spectrum, or “cline,” of literariness, rejecting fixed boundaries and allowing for literary qualities to be present in various language forms.
“There is no such thing as literary language insofar as there is any single property intrinsic to language which can be called literary.”	Here, they refute the idea of intrinsic properties defining literary language, suggesting instead that context and interaction contribute to literariness.
“Literariness in language comes from the simultaneous operation and interrelation of effects at different levels in the language system.”	This quotation underscores the complexity of literary language, emphasizing that multiple stylistic and linguistic layers contribute to its unique qualities.
“We do believe… degrees of literariness can and should be identified.”	Carter and Nash support nuanced analysis by recognizing that certain texts may display more “literary” characteristics than others, reinforcing their cline approach.
“Attempts to define literary language in terms of truth-conditions or of fictional v. non-fictional… run the risk of instituting the same divisions and polarities.”	The authors caution against definitions based on binary oppositions, which, they argue, oversimplify and constrain interpretations of literary texts.
“In literary discourse… text explains text, text expands text, text projects an extra-textual ‘reality.'”	This observation emphasizes the autonomy of literary texts, suggesting that they create and sustain their own realities independent of external references.
“The sovereignty of the text… enables the text to stand on its own terms.”	By “sovereignty,” Carter and Nash mean the text’s self-contained meaning and structure, a trait they argue is central to literariness.
“A literary text… is a creative end for the author and a primary object for the reader.”	This highlights the interactive role of literature, where the text serves as a point of co-creation between the author’s intentions and the reader’s interpretation.
“The ‘literary’ does not effectively exist without the ‘non-literary,’ and it draws constantly on ‘non-literary’ sources.”	The authors argue that literary texts frequently incorporate elements from non-literary contexts, a process they call “re-registration,” which allows language to adopt new meanings.

Suggested Readings: “Language and literariness” by Ronald Carter and Walter Nash

1. Carter, R., & Nash, W. (1983). Language and literariness. Prose Studies, 6(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01440358308586190
2. Alexandrov, Vladimir E. “Literature, Literariness, and the Brain.” Comparative Literature, vol. 59, no. 2, 2007, pp. 97–118. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40279363. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.
3. McNAMER, SARAH. “The Literariness of Literature and the History of Emotion.” PMLA, vol. 130, no. 5, 2015, pp. 1433–42. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44017160. Accessed 8 Nov. 2024.