standard
Standard Language and Poetic Language
Jan Mukarovsky
The problem of the relationship between standard language and poetic language can be considered from two standpoints. The theorist of poetic language pos it somewhat as follows: is the poet bound by the norms of the standard? Or perhaps: how does this norm asrt itlf in poetry? The theorist of the standard language, on the other hand, wants to know above all to what extent a work of poetry can be ud as data for ascertaining the norm of the standard. In other words, the theory of poetic language is primarily interested in the differences between the standard and poetic language, whereas the theory of the standard language is mainly interested in the similarities between them. It is clear that with a good procedure no conflict can ari between the two directions of rearch; there is only a difference in the point of view and in the illumination of the problem. Our study approaches the problem of the relationship between poetic language and the standard from
the vantage point of poetic language. Our procedure will be to subdivide the general problem into a number of special problems.桂圆干上火吗
画报图片大全>和院
年的故事The first problem, by way of introduction, concerns the following: what is the relationship between the extension of poetic language and that of the standard, between the places of each in the total system of the whole of language? Is poetic language a special brand of the standard, or is it an independent formation?--- Poetic language cannot be called a brand of the standard, if for no other reason that poetic language has at its disposal, from the standpoint of lexicon, syntax, etc., all the forms of the given language---often of different developmental phas thereof. There are works in which the lexical material is take n over completely from another form of language than the standard (thus, Villon’s or Rictus’ slang poetry in French literature). Different forms of the language may exist side by side in a work of poetry (for instance, in the dialogues of a novel dialect of slang, in the narrative passages the standard). Poetic language finally also has some of its own lexicon and phraology as well as some grammatical forms, the so-called poetisms such as zor [gaze], or [steed], pláti [be aflame], 3rd p. sg. muz [can; cf. English -th] …. Only so
me schools of poetry, of cour, have a positive attitude towards poetisms (among them the LumírGroup including Svatopluk Cech), others reject them.
薄荷香蒜片
Poetic language is thus not a brand of the standard. This is not to deny the clo connection between the two, which consists in the fact that, for poetry, the standard language is the background against which is reflected the esthetically intentional distortion of the linguistic components of the work, in other words, the intentional violation of the norm of the standard. Let us, for instance, visualize a work in which this distortion is carried out by the interpenetration of dialect speech with the standard; it is clear, then, that it is not the standard which is perceived as a distortion of the dialect, but the dialect as a distortion of the standard, even when the dialect is quantitatively preponderant. The violation of the norm of the standard, its systematic violation, is what makes possible the poetic utilization of language; without this possibility there would be no poetry. The more the norm of the standard is stabilized in a given language, the more varied can be its violation, and therefore the more possibilities for poetry in that language. And on the other hand, the weaker the awareness of this norm, the fewer possibilities of violation, and hen
如何二次长高>城市展示馆
ce the fewer possibilities for poetry. Thus, in the beginnings of Modern Czech poetry, when the awareness of the norm of the standard was weak, poetic neologisms with the purpo of violating the norm of the standard were little different from neologisms designed to gain general acceptance and become a part of the norm of the standard, so that they could be confud with them.
The cond special question which we shall attempt to answer concerns the different function of the
two forms of language. This is the core of the problem. The function of poetic language consists in the maximum of foregrounding of the utterance. Foregrounding is the opposite of automatization, that is, the deautomatization of an act; the more an act is automatized, the less it is consciously executed; the more it is foregrounded, the more completely conscious does it become. Objectively speaking: automatization schematizes an event; foregrounding means the violation of the scheme. The standard language in its purest form, as the language of science with formation as its objective, avoids foregrounding [akt
belong是什么意思ualisace]: thus, a new expression, foregrounded becau of its newness, is immediately automatized in a scientific treati by an exact definition of its meaning. Foregrounding is , of cour, common in the standard language, for instance, in journalistic style, even more in essays. But here it is always subordinate to communication: its purpo is to attract the rea der’s (listener’s) attention more cloly to the subject matter expresd by the foregrounded means of expression. All that has been said here about foregrounding and automatization in the standard language has been treated in detail in Havránek’s paper in this cycle; we are here concerned with poetic language. In poetic language foregrounding achieves maximum intensity to the extent of pushing communication into the background as the objective of expression and of being ud for its own sake; it is not ud in the rvices of communication, but in order to place in the foreground the act of expression, the act of speech itlf. The question is then one of how this maximum of foregrounding is achieved in poetic language. The idea might ari that this is a quantitative effect, a matter of the foregrounding of the largest number of components, perhaps of all of them together. This would be a mistake, although only a theoretical one,
since in practice such a complete foregrounding of all the components is impossible. The foregrounding of any one of the components is necessarily accompanied by the automatization of one or more of the other components; thus, for instance, the foregrounded intonation in [Jaroslav] Vrchlicky [1853-1912, a poet of the LumírGroup, e above] and [Svatopluk] Cech has necessarily pushed to the lowest level of automatization the meaning of the word as a unit, becau the foregrounding of its meaning would give the word phonetic independence as well and lead to a disturbance of the uninterrupted flow of the intonational (melodic) line; an example of the degree to which the mantic independence of the word in context also manifests itlf as intonational independence can be found in [Karel] Toman’s [1877-1946, a modern poet] ver. The foregrounding of intonation as an uninterrupted melodic line is thus linked to the mantic “emptiness” for which the Lumír Group has been criticized by the younger generation as being “verbalistic.”--- In addition to the practical impossibility of the foregrounding of all components, it can also be pointed out that the simultaneous foregrounding of all the components of a work of poetry is unthinkable. This is becau th
e foregrounding of a component implies precily its being placed in the foreground; the unit in the foreground, however, occupies this position by comparison with another unit or units that remain in the background. A simultaneous general foregrounding would thus bring all the components into the same plane and so become a new automatization.
The devices by which poetic language achieves its maximum of foregrounding must therefore be sought elwhere than in the quantity of foregrounded components. They consist in the consistency and systematic character of foregrounding. The consistency manifests itlf in the fact that the reshaping of the foregrounded component within a given work occurs in a stable direction; thus, the deautomatization of meanings in a certain work is consistently carried out by lexical lection (the mutual interlarding of contrasting areas of the lexicon), in another equally consistently by the uncommon mantic relationship of words clo together in the context. Both procedures result in a foregrounding of meaning, but differently for each. The systematic foregrounding of components in a work of poetry consists in the gradation of the interrelationships of the components, that is, in their mutual subordination and superordination. The
