Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pragmatic literary theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pragmatic literary theory
The central discussion of the current paper proceeds as a counter-argumentation to Johansen’s discursal view of literature in Literary Discourse: A Semiotic Pragmatic Approach to Literature (2002).Our premise is that literary discourseis a multiplicity functioning nonlinearly different from one context of interpretation to another. Literature can be therefore appraised as an autonomous composite of discourses not reducible to the idea of mimetic representation of a realitybydisengaging itself from any suppositious monism or any formality built for. In line with such a postulation, we duly present four main perspectives to counter granularity, mimeticity, and linearity, and institutionalization of literature as advocated by Johansen. Drawing …show more content…
The discussion on the metadiscursivity of literature features it with interdiscursivity and intertextuality. The paper concludes far from analogizing the actual world, the virtual metadiscourse of literature runs parallel to the real world in an attempt to otherwise it.
Keywords: mimeticity, virtual, metadiscourse, literature, Johansen
1-Introduction
Officially, discourse analysis realized as a new systematic contextualized discipline in language studies in 1970s (Van Dijk5-7).Thenceforth, languagescholars studied the relations between textual and contextual components of discoursewithin more developed conjoining perspectives,namely psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, semiolinguistics, pragmalinguistics. Howbeit, contributions to literary discourse analysishavebeen so far both insubstantial and slippery. Leafing through books and articles by discourse analysts like Hassan and Halliday, Norman Fairclough, Ruth Wodak, Theo van Leeowen, Teun A. Van Dijk,etc., proves how literature suffers marginalization in the field. Even when Malcolm Coulthard (1985) devotes a chapter to literature– significantly enough, the last chapter of his An Introduction to Discourse Analysis – he carries out a detailed analysis of the stylistic features of a literary text stringently within a linguistic fabric.
The wonderful and talented personage who wrote this book is Lemony Snickets. He is a studied expert in rhetorical analysis, a distinguished scholar, an amateur connoisseur.
Among its detractors, literary theory has a reputation for sinful ignorance of both literature and the outside world; literary critics either overemphasize the word at the expense of context (as in formalistic criticisms) or overemphasize context at the expense of the word (as in political and historical criticisms). However, deconstruction holds a particularly tenuous position among literary theories as a school that apparently commits both sins; while formalistically focusing on the words on the page, deconstruction subjects those words to unnatural abuse. Thus, deconstruction seems locked in the ivory tower, in the company of resentful New-Critical neighbors.
Kristeva, Julia. "A Question of Subjectivity--an Interview." Modern Literary Theory: A Reader. Ed. Philip Rice and Patricia Waugh. New York: Routledge, Chapman, and Hall, 1989.
Frye, Northrop. “The Archetypes of Literature.” Criticism Twenty Major Statements. Ed. Charles Kaplan. Bedford/St. Martins. 2000. 476-486.
In this essay, I will be analyzing the Traditional method of rhetorical criticism and the Narrative method of rhetorical criticism.
Deep-seated in these practices is added universal investigative and enquiring of acquainted conflicts between philosophy and the art of speaking and/or effective writing. Most often we see the figurative and rhetorical elements of a text as purely complementary and marginal to the basic reasoning of its debate, closer exploration often exposes that metaphor and rhetoric play an important role in the readers understanding of a piece of literary art. Usually the figural and metaphorical foundations strongly back or it can destabilize the reasoning of the texts. Deconstruction however does not indicate that all works are meaningless, but rather that they are spilling over with numerous and sometimes contradictory meanings. Derrida, having his roots in philosophy brings up the question, “what is the meaning of the meaning?”
Parker, Robert Dale. How to Interpret Literature: Critical Theory for Literary and Cultural Studies. New York: Oxford, 2011. Print.
Guerin, Wilfred L., Earle Labor, Lee Morgan, Jeanne C. Reesman, and John R. Willingham. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 125-156.
The Language of Literature. Applebee N, Authur, et al. A Houghton Mifflin company 1996 pg. 1088
Guerin, Wilfred L., et.al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
The method of criticism that will be under examination in this paper will be the narrative approach. Many parts exist in the realm of narration and can be connected to other rhetorical theories and methods previously studied. In addition, the theory itself shows to have interesting content and is useful in the criticism of certain areas of topic. Adding on, the narrative approach can be seen as an international paradigm that connects human experience and human communication, making it a theory that can be seen in abundance. To begin, the theory itself must be examined and in what ways the theory exist in the world.
(Lanser , 2008) describes one of the main views of feminist criticism as being ‘that narrative texts ... are profoundly ( if never simply) referential’. Semiotics in relation to verbal language is described by Herman as 'a conventional relation between signifier and signified' (p281) One way of combining the mimetic and semiotic is to look at the conventions in the semiotics of verbal language ‘which suggests a synthesis of feminist narratology reflecting the referential or mimetic as well as the semiotic experience of reading literature’. (Lanser, 2008 , p. 345)
Postmodern literary criticism asserts that art, author, and audience can only be approached through a series of mediating contexts. "Novels, poems, and plays are neither timeless nor transcendent" (Jehlen 264). Even questions of canon must be considered within a such contexts. "Literature is not only a question of what we read but of who reads and who writes, and in what social circumstances...The canon itself is an historical event; it belongs to the history of the school" (Guillory 238,44).
Literature is an intricate art form. In order to attempt to understand the meanings and ideas within literary work, there are many forms of criticism that propose different approaches to its interpretation. Each criticism is crucial to the understanding of how individuals interpret literary works. Since each criticism has a different approach to enrich the understanding literary works, the question is raised whether one criticism should be used over others, whether a certain combination of criticisms should be used, or whether all criticisms should be taken into account. This may all be dependent on the reader’s individual preference or opinion, but each criticism presented builds on the others to create a well-rounded and unique understanding