The Routledge Dictionary of Literary Terms

different constitutive factors of the
communicative event: the referential function,
for example, lays stress on the nonlinguistic
context (the ‘world’) referred
to in communication, minimizing other
factors, such as the characteristics of
speaker and addressee, and the actual
structural form of the utterance. The
‘poetic’ function, on the other hand,
invests attention precisely in the formal
linguistic construction; and Jakobson
offers a very illuminating formula to
explain the structural principle of poetic
form. The validity of Jakobson’s ‘poetic
principle’ is not at issue here; what is
questionable is the classification of
‘functions’. A partition of functions
of language which sets off the ‘poetic’ or
‘literary’ as a separate category can lead
to neglect of linguistic features which do
not fall under the criterion, and thus to an
incomplete apprehension of the literary
text (see R. Fowler, Literature as Social
Discourse, 1981, chs 9 and 10).
Theorists of literature have been
increasingly ready to recognize the continuity
of linguistic processes within and
outside literature. Certainly, there are no
linguistic criteria for distinguishing literature
and non-literature (cf. LITERATURE).
The consequence of these decisions – to
grant priority to language and to see
language in literature as not essentially
different from the language of other
texts – is that we may feed into literary
criticism whatever insights we gain about
language at large. Such insights, have
been very considerable, resulting in a
refined and rich debate over the theory
of language; a detailed understanding of
the principles of linguistic construction at
different levels, particularly syntax and
phonology; great strides in empirical
knowledge of different languages; significant
advances in the understanding of
the relations between language and
Language 127
thought, and language and society; and a
sophisticated discussion of the relationships
between linguistics and adjacent
disciplines – education, psychology, sociology,
anthropology, politics, artificial intelligence,
literary theory, literary criticism. A
small selection of good textbooks to give a
flavour of various parts of linguistics might
include W. Downes, Language and Society
(1984) and M. A. K. Halliday, Language as
Social Semiotic (1978).
The linguistic study of literature,
known as ‘stylistics’ or ‘linguistic criticism’,
has advanced in several ways. It
built on the work of Mukarˇovskò and of
Jakobson to make powerful contributions
to literary theory (cf. FORMALISM, STRUC-
TURALISM). It added substantially to
knowledge of some aspects of literary
structure which are manifestly linguistic
in character (e.g. METAPHOR, METRE); and
some less obvious topics, such as SYNTAX,
were made more salient to the critic. The
best way to sample these diverse contributions
would be to browse in some of the
collections of specialized papers which
have been published, such as R. Carter
(ed.), Language and Literature (1982).
Linguistic studies have also focussed
on specific genres of literary writing. For
poetry, see G. N. Leech, A Linguistic Guide
to English Poetry (1969); M. Riffaterre,
Semiotics of Poetry (1978). For the novel,
see R. Fowler, Linguistics and the Novel
(2nd edn, 1983); G. N. Leech and
M. H. Short, Style in Fiction (1981). For
drama, see D. Burton, Dialogue and
Discourse (1980). For a general discussion,
see Ronald Carter and Walter Nash,
Seeing Through Language: Guide to
Styles of English Writing (1990).
In the move towards theorizing literature
as DISCOURSE language is regarded as far
more than formal structure and communicated
ideas: it is seen as an interpersonal
practice with causes and effects in social