See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/294087472

Talking about Literature: Literary Terms

Chapter · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 5,210

1 author:

Lucyna Wille
Rzeszów University
14 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

TRANSLATION AND POWER View project

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN TRANSLATION View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lucyna Wille on 12 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Chapter I

Talking about Literature: Literary Terms

In this chapter, we shall present a few key terms essential for further deliberations about
literature. Some of them, like literature itself, sound familiar and seem understandable for
everybody (although, as will be shown, the problem is more complicated than that), whereas
others belong to specialist language and are unknown to a vast majority of people. Here, we
will refrain from discussing literary genres – they will be presented in detail in Chapter II. The
terms widely presented in other chapters will be omitted as well.
We shall start with the notion of literature; the term comes from the Latin noun littera (letter)
and referred originally, in the broadest sense, to the entire body of writing. Here, we focus on
the much narrower meaning of literature, which seems still spacious enough to cause
confusion. It is not clear if the notion of literature should cover all the belle art titles available
in the book stores (in the meantime, more and more often downloadable on the internet), be
limited to those mentioned in specialist handbooks or maybe restricted to the lists of
compulsory reading at schools or universities. As pointed out by Meyer, ‘[t]he word
“literature” will always pose some problems not posed by words such as “furniture” and
“bird”. The educational system has functioned as a kind of certifier of what literature is, and
many speakers of English would call whatever works they were taught in their high school
English classes “literature” without regard to any other characteristics’ (1997:9). These
problems are strongly connected to the notion of literariness, as introduced by Jakobson and
defined as ‘that which makes a given work a literary work’ (Cuddon 1976: 465). As pointed
out by Cuddon, literature is ‘a vague term which usually denotes works which belong to the
major genres: epic, drama, lyric, novel, short story. If we describe something as “literature”,
as opposed to anything else, the term carries with it qualitative connotations which imply that
the work in question has outstanding qualities, that it is well above the ordinary scope of
written works (ibid. : 472). A more subjective definition was presented by Hirsch (1978:34):
‘Literature includes any text worthy to be taught to students by teachers of literature, when
these texts are not being taught to students in other departments of a school or university’.
However, the subjectivity of judgment is connected with some interpersonally confirmable
qualities, since being worthy of teaching implies both valuation and popularization. The
Oxford Dictionary defines literature as ‘written works, especially those considered of superior
or lasting artistic merit’, which implies that it is of historical nature, since only time can tell
which artistic merits will last.
The theory of literature is a scientific discipline that elaborates terms and notions necessary
for discussing literature from an expert’s point of view; thanks to this theory, it was possible
to discern literature as a specific field of human activity and maintain it as such. The above-
mentioned difficulties with coining a satisfactory definition of literature as such pose a
problem which occurred within the theory of literature. Talking about the atmosphere of
ballads, blank verse in poetry or the moral of a fable is possible since the theorists of literature
proposed and defined the terms ballad, blank verse, poetry and fable for further use in the
discussions. This chapter is meant to depict a few more selected terms which have been
introduced within the theory of literature.

The history of literature should not be confused with its theory. The history describes selected
works in chronological order (which is the essence of any history) and aims at generalisations,
which make it possible to discern tendencies, groups and epochs. A representative product of
a historian of literature’s work is a handbook with a title like History of British Literature
1900-1950, where a chapter usually covers a distinguished epoch and the subchapters deal
with individual authors or tendencies. An emphasis was put on the fact that a historian of
literature focuses on selected works, which is very important, also for the notion of literature
itself. It is obvious that being selected for a handbook entails being noticed, read, discussed,
reedited and revived. In this sense, the historians of literature reflect and determine the history
of literature.

Literary criticism1 encompasses comments on selected works. The role of the critics is
significant; they are supposed to critically review, discuss and evaluate literary works. A
critical review, as meant here, does not imply a negative or rejecting judgment, but a reasoned
opinion, based upon vital, analytical questions. They are usually written by scholars who are
experts in literature and publish in scientific journals or papers. There is also another sort of
reviews, even much more influential in terms of the work’s reception (and selling rates):
evaluative reviews in popular magazines, which can be decisive for the current reception and

1
The term literary criticism is a false friend of the Polish readers, especially those who saw it wrongly rendered
as krytyka literacka (literary critique). The quoted Polish term refers to the opinions of a non-scientific character,
usually uttered by columnists or journalists labelled as critics. Thus, it is vital to note that the term literary
criticism is not the same as krytyka literacka in Polish but the words critic and krytyk in Polish do mean the
same.
future of the work in question. Sometimes the mere fact of being reviewed, i.e. noticed by the
expert, so obviously worthy of attention, may prove more important than the contents of the
opinion.2 The expert in this case, the critic, is not necessarily a scholar; quite often s/he is a
journalist specializing in literary issues. This sort of literary review does not claim to be
academic; it is a point of departure for the work’s circulation on the market and “forwards” it
both to the lay readers and academic professionals for further evaluation alike.

On the book market of each country there is a plethora of various titles representing, on the
one hand, a variety of genres, on the other hand, both the local and foreign literature; the latter
in translation. As regards this multitude of literary works, a certain hierarchy can be observed.
A literary polysystem of a country is a net of works that function in a given culture. It can be
visualised as a circle with a centre and peripheries; the most important titles occupy the
center, whereas the others are located outside the centre, at a distance increasing with the
work’s decreasing significance. However, the borders between the centre and peripheries are
vague and peripheries rather capacious. In a strong, established culture, the titles chosen for
compulsory reading at schools fill the centre of the polysystem, whilst translated titles play an
inferior role and are situated in the peripheries. In weak and young cultures, on the contrary,
foreign works in translation may play a central role. (Even-Zohar 1978). Certainly, particular
classic works and authors are an exception and are usually in the centre. Furthermore, the
place of a title in the centre is not assigned forever; it results from its lasting importance in the
given culture, which can subside in the course of history and yield to forthcoming works.

The notion of classic literature has at least two meanings. 3 Firstly, it refers to the
“evergreens” of the ancient Greek and Roman literature that served as ideals for the literary
creation of the following centuries. Secondly, it encompasses all the worldwide recognised
works which have been translated into many languages and have an impact on human thought
as well as on other writers and artists beyond their times. In both cases, the criterion is lasting,
thus becoming a classic is a long process that cannot be steered or stopped by means other
than barbaric. Consequently, a classic is an author of a work recognised as classic.

2
A devastating review may arouse the reader’s curiosity, according to the rule of forbidden fruit; unfavourable
opinions about the early prose by the German Nobel prize winner Günter Grass, published by the “pope of the
German literary critics” Marcel Reich-Ranicki (for some time a Polish citizen and diplomat) did not deprive the
writer of a lasting place in the history of literature, still in his lifetime.
3
In the history of German literature, there was a period called the Classic of Weimar, represented by Goethe at a
stage of his artistic development. A strong characteristic of the Classic of Weimar was the involving of ancient
patterns and motifs.
National literature and world literature could be easily mistaken for all the literary works of a
nation or all the literary works in the world, respectively, but both terms have a slightly
different meaning. Strongly connected to the concept of nation as presented by Herder 4
national literature as such was supposed to critically approach the political developments
concerning the nation in question. On the other hand, the notion world literature, eagerly
promoted by Goethe, covered the works universal enough to build a common world.5 The
question why countless outstanding examples of some national literatures have never entered
the world literature6 can be answered easily: they tackle particular problems of immense
national significance and not issues that niggle at the whole world’s community.

Like any other product of human activity, literature is expected to perform certain functions in
cultivated societies. Its mimetic function7 consists in depicting the world in the most possibly
faithful way. It implies verisimilitude as likeness or semblance of the narrative to reality and
excludes such elements as fantasy and its relative, science fiction. As long as the mimetic
function is performed by literature, the latter aspires to become a source of knowledge and
experience. The didactic function8 of literature consists in conveying values which are
appreciated in the society in a given epoch; involving these values in literature means
promoting them. It goes without saying that the values to be disseminated by and in literature
may be subject to change and modification. Usually, the didactic function is associated with
the literature for children and the youth as the age group the attitudes and morals of which can
still be formed towards the desired shape; but actually, didactic contents in terms of cognitive
or moral message are inscribed in most works for adults as well. The ludic9 function means
providing entertainment and pleasure with no further purposes; the pleasure is considered as a
value in itself. According to the philosopher Martin Heidegger, the major function of a work
of art in general is to keep the human thought in motion; 10 we shall call it the philosophical
function of a literary work. It implies that a work of art (literature) poses a challenge for the

4
In Herder’s view, a nation was considered as an ethnic group if it used the same language. Consequently, the
national literature encompassed the works written in that particular language, with the restriction though, that
they tackle the common problems of the group in question.
5
Due to some shameful developments within self-glorifying nations towards harmful nationalisms, the products
of national literatures sometimes adopted elements of hostility against other nations.
6
Mickiewicz and Słowacki being the best examples from Polish literature.
7
Mimesis is a word of Greek origins which means imitation, reproduction or copy
8
Didactics covers the activities undertaken for educative purposes and is a synonym of teaching.
9
Ludic means ‘applying to the natural drive to pleasure’.
10
Heidegger’s reasoning, as presented in the essay Der Ursprung des Kunstwerkes (On the origin of the work of
art) refers directly to van Gogh’s painting The shoes but is extended over all manifestations of art.
prevailing system of values and schemes of perception and gives the recipient an opportunity
to look at well-known things from an alternative perspective.
It goes without saying that whatever is labelled as literature requires the readership; on its way
to the reader each work needs the ‘mediation’ of the publisher as a person or a group of
people who run a publishing house and select the titles worth printing and offering to the
audience. Sometimes, the process of selection and evaluation before printing the book and
making it available for the reader involves censorship; the latter, both institutionalized/official
and unofficial, has an immense impact on the form and contents of literary works and cannot
be ignored in a serious debate on literature. In totalitarian or semi-totalitarian regimes, where
all the domains of human activities are controlled by politics and serve political purposes, the
writers have to go by established guidelines if they want to be published and recognised.
Therefore, official censorship leads directly to internal self-censorship on the side of the
author, who works in order to be published and will mostly try to adjust to the prevailing
(extra-literary) expectations of the decision-makers.

Literary Prizes are awarded on local, national and international levels in order to support,
promote or honour the writers at different stages of their careers. The most prestigious of
them, the Nobel Prize in literature, has been recently denied to already acclaimed authors11
but was rather awarded to those whose works truly deserve a broad recognition of the Prize
committee. Sometimes, the prize goes to representatives of a region or culture to which, in the
committee’s opinion, public attention should be drawn to.
A work of literature as such is subject to interpretation; there is no agreement among experts
or even fans of literature concerning a ‘legitimate’ way to interpret, i.e. understand the work
in question. Umberto Eco (1994:62) differentiates between three ‘intentions’ inscribed in the
(always individual) process of interpretation and gives them Latin names of intentio auctoris,
intentio lectoris and intentio operis. The first one poses the (sometimes irritating and often
futile) question of what the author wanted to ‘say’. This, as can be confirmed by any
interested reader, is not always (or maybe usually?) not what the recipient actually has

11
Many Nobel Prize winners become internationally famous only on being awarded the prize, for instance
Czesław Miłosz (1980) and Wisława Szymborska (1996), but also Elias Canetti (1981), John Coetzee (2003),
Orhan Pamuk (2006), Doris Lessing (2007) or Alice Munro (2013). But there are also numerous examples of
awarding the Nobel Prize to already celebrated personalities like John Galsworthy (1932), Thomas Eliot (1948),
Ernest Hemingway (1954), John Steinbeck (1962), Samuel Beckett (1969),Gabriel Garcia Marquez (1982) or
Günter Grass (1999).
understood, i.e. intentio lectoris.12 Moreover, possibly none of them corresponds totally to the
way the text can be understood on the grounds of its actual wording, i.e. intentio operis. This
very element, which can be labelled as text intention in English, seems most interesting in
Eco’s concept, since it emancipates the product (work) from the producer (author) without
questioning the original link between them. Another interesting question regarding
interpretation is if and to what extent work-external factors like the author’s background or
social references should be taken into consideration. The so-called work-immanent approach13
should be mentioned here, too. To interpret in a work-immanent way means to completely
focus on the analysis of the text elements and their interconnections, without reaching beyond
the text itself. Thus, neither the author’s biography or the historical/social background are
taken into consideration here. A work-immanent approach seems particularly adequate for the
texts of unknown authorship or authorship not familiar to the interpreter.

One of the issues excluded from research in the case of the work-immanent approach is
intertextuality i.e. the text’s reference to other texts. First introduced in linguistics as one of
the seven standards of textuality, 14 intertextuality was transferred to literary studies by Julia
Kristeva to point to interconnections between the works of literature. The phenomenon of
intertextuality confirms a certain continuity and coherence of literature as a specific human
activity within the use of language and thought.

We want to close this chapter with Bakhtin’s (1984) notion of carnival and the carnivalesque,
which seems to carry an optimistic message of literature; its essence and function. Bakhtin
defines the traditional carnival, as known from the middle ages, as a spontaneous event with
voluntary participation of ordinary people, in which the social barriers and norms are banned
for the time of the performance, with no separation between the actors and the audience.
Thus, carnival in its original form is perceived as a manifestation of unrestricted freedom,
which includes the freedom of language use (humour, irony, grotesque). It is claimed that
carnival as such has disappeared from social life, since it has been replaced by state-controlled

12
To illustrate the problem better, an example from daily life can be delivered. People sometimes go so far that
they sue one another because of certain words uttered to or about them in public (spoken or written). The
defendant sometimes argues, they did not ‘mean to offend’, in other words: their intention was different from the
intention of the plaintiff as a recipient. In the course of the investigation, an expert linguist is being called up to
decide whether or not the wording in question can be understood as offensive. Sometimes the plaintiff is
considered right, sometimes not.
13
This approach was advocated by influent scholars like Emil Steiger and Wolfgang Kayser. Its popularity in
western (but not eastern) Germany after WWII resulted from general disgust of politics in some artistic circles
and posed a reaction to the misuse of literature for the purposes of propaganda in Nazi-times.
14
The term covers direct relations (e.g. quotations, paraphrases) or indirect connections (e.g. allusions, parallels.)
 parades, festivals etc., that – as deprived of spontaneity – do not perform the same function
any longer. Nowadays, literature has become the ‘market square’ for the carnival, since it
always contains some subversive elements, challenges against prevailing norms, a multitude
of voices that do not sing in a choir. Bakhtin lived in the time of the Soviet revolution, post-
revolutionary transformations and Stalinist terror; interstingly, from this very experience, he
draws the conclusion of ‘centrifugal [forces], aimed at promoting ambivalence and allowing
openness and transgression’ (Lachmann 1998: 116). This force is opposed to the ‘centripetal’
one that strives for a uniform culture, with a unified use of language (ibid.).
The fact that the former power is always set against the one preceding it puts a seal on the
importance of literature for humanity.

References

Bakhtin, Mikhail.1984. Rablais and his world, transl. by H. Iswolsky. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Cuddon, John. 1976. Dictionary of Literary Terms&Literary Theory. London: Penguin
Books.
Eco. Umberto.1994. The Limits of Interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Hirsch, Eric D. Jr. 1978. ‘What isn’t literature?’. In : P. Hernadi, ed. What is literature?
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 24–34.
Even-Zohar, Itamar.1978. ‘The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary
Polysystem’. In: J. Holmes, J. Lambert, and R. van den Broeck, eds. Literature and
Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies. Leuven: ACCO, pp.117–127.
Lachmann, Renate. 1988. ’Bakhtin and Carnival: Culture as Anti-Culture’. In: R. Lachmann,
R.Eshelman and M. Davies, eds. Cultural Critique 11, pp.115–152.
Meyer, Jim. 1997. Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North
Dakota Session 1997 Vol. 41 1Online. URL: www.und.nodak.edu/dept/linguistics/wp/1997Meyer.htm.
[Accessed on 12.05.2014].

Lucyna Wille

View publication stats