Jakobson:

An overview:
Jakobson's main hypothesis is that language is a bipolar system, structured in two poles: the
metonymic and the metaphoric.

METAPHORIC POLE METONYMIC POLE

• It corresponds to the code.
• It's related to the paradigmatic axis.
• Metaphor is related to selection*, so it
implies a choice between alternatives of
a repository.
• It is held in absentia and together with
substitution they are two sides of the
same coin.
• It corresponds to the message.
• It's related to the syntagmatic axis.
• Metonymy is related to combination*:
any linguistic sign is made up of
constituent signs and occur only in
combination with other signs.
• It's held in praesentia, and together with
contexture are two sides of the same
coin.

* Any linguistic sign involves these two modes of arrangement.

Jakobson used this structure of language to explain speech disorders, both contiguity and
similarity disorders. People who suffer from contiguity disorders are unable to combine and
contextualise elements, so the metonymic pole is impaired. On the other hand, people who suffer
from similarity disorders, are unable to select and substitute elements, so the metaphoric pole is
impaired.

Jakobson and the poetic function of language: (Taylor Tablot)

An introduction:
Jakobson's work has had a great impact on contemporary stylistic theory, although he does never
even mention the word “style” in it. Instead, J's influence stems from his writings related to
poetics, or, the study of literarity in poetic language. Stylistics today, is the direct descendent of
the theory originally presented in “the Traité”
To understand J's influence on the course of linguistics, one must understand what he felt to be
the object of his own investigations. He argued that poetics deals primarily with the question
“What makes a verbal message a work of art? For J, then, the study of the verbal message as a
work of art is the study of style.

A structure superimposed on the message:

For J, style is a structure superimposed on a linguistic message. A message with literary
style is not only organised by its “ordinary” linguistic structure, i.e. the grammar, but also by an
arbitrary arrangement of some of the linguistic features into pattens and repetitions. The first a
priori structure (the grammar) is obligatory for any message, because without taking it into
account, we would not be able to convey messages successfully. The second -superimposed-
structure, is the a posteriori stylistic structure. It is not obligatory for any or every utterance, but
this does not preclude a possible contribution made by the superimposed structure to the
communication of meaning by a particular utterance.
As G-G Granger puts it, a message may acquire a second communicational function besides that
of transmitting meaning, as a result of a specific type of structure being superimposed on the
variable features in its expression plane. For example, if I utter a sentence with a high frequency
of sibilants, this high frequency will not affect the meaning of the sentence, but this pattern of
sibilants might give the sentence a secondary function, other than that of communicating
meaning. It may, for example, give it an expressive function. If I combine such a sentence with a
raised voice, they might together help communicate the knowledge that I was angry. The
expressive function of that sentence – communicating the speaker's emotion – lies in a
conceptually irrelevant, superimposed structure which patterns the variable features of the
message.
According to J, the linguistic function of a message is seen to be the communication of a
meaning, but the message may have other functions too. The linguistic meaning is determined
solely by virtue of the conventions of the language. The style, literarity, or illocutionary force,
although communicated by the very same message, is seen as supplementary to the invariant,
conventional meaning. In theories from other authors such as Bally and Austin, this secondary
effect supposedly springs from an extra-linguistic source, the communication situation. On the
other hand, J is not forced to turn to extra-linguistic sources to explain the phenomena of style.
Instead, he believes that it is the poetic function of language which accounts for the
literarity or style of an utterance.

The poetic function:

J bases his account of the functions of language on what he considers to be “the six constitutive
factors of any speech event”.

T h e ADDRESSER sends a MESSAGE to the ADDRESSEE. To be operative, the message

requires a CONTEXT referred to, seizable by the addressee and either verbal or capable of being
verbalised; a CODE, fully, or at least partially common to addresser and addressee and finally a
CONTACT, a physical channel and psychological connection between the addresser and the
addressee. Each of these factors determines a different function of language. J claims that the
function of an utterance depends on its “orientation to” one or more of these six constitutive
factors of the speech event. For instance, an utterance's orientation toward the context would
mean that it has a referential function. The poetic function, is said to account for the literarity or
style of an utterance, is “the set towards the MESSAGE as such, focus on the message for its
own sake”.
We have seen that the “focus” or “set” of a message determines which factor of the speech event
is the most relevant to the interpretation of the message. This, at the same time, is related to the
notion of the interpretive role of the subject in perception. Without the interpretive contribution by
the subject to the act of perceiving the utterance, the latter would be no more than a string of
sounds. The string of sounds, then, apart from being seeing as having a grammatical structure, it
also undergoes a second “emic” analysis by the language user. This second analysis results in
the attribution of what could be called a “situational function” to the utterance. J's theory of
functions of language may be seen as attempting to account for the nature of this second level of
analysis. In this way, the language user perceives a string of sounds as being not only an
utterance of his language, but also as a functional part of the communicative situation. In this way,
the focus determines what factor in the speech event is most relevant to the interpretation of the
message.
Yet, surprisingly, as far as the poetic function is concerned, J denies the roles of situation in
determining this particular function of the message. Instead, the fact that a message has a poetic
function is determined solely by certain of its linguistic features. Thus, the message with what
Jakobsonians call “style” is determined by the linguistic form of the message itself. Moreover, the
poetic function focuses on its own constitutive linguistic structure. The word is seen not as a
substitute for the referent, but as indicating its own operability as a sign. The poetic function
promotes the palpability of the sign, because there is a dislocation between the sign and the
referent. The focus is not on the meaning of words, but on patterns of similarity, connotation,
sound, opposition, parallelism, etc.

The linguistic criterion of the poetic function:

What is the indispensable feature inherent in any piece of poetry? To answer this we must recall
two modes of arrangement used in verbal behaviour: selection and combination. Selection is
produced on the base of equivalence, similarity, dissimilarity, synonymy and antonymy, while
combination, or the built-up of a sequence, is based on contiguity. The poetic function projects
the principle of equivalence from the axis of selection into the axis of combination.
The conceptual background for this statement lies in the Saussurian notion of the paradigmatic
and syntagmatic structures of language. This is a view to which J subscribes, seeing it as a
general organising principle which underlies the structure of all languages. This two-fold character
of language can be explained as follows.
According to J, any linguistic sign involves two modes of arrangement:
1) Combination: any sign is made up of constituent signs and or occurs only in combination with
other signs.
2 ) Selection: a selection between alternatives implies the possibility of substituting one for the
other, equivalent in some respect, and different from it in another. Selection and substitution are
two faces of the same operation.

Saussure maintained that “in a language state everything is based on relations” and that
“relations” and differences between linguistic terms fall into two distinct groups. These two groups
he describes as relations in absentia, which are equivalent to J's syntagmatic relations and in
praesentia, which are equivalent to J's paradigmatic relations.

It's important that we pay particular attention to J's notion of paradigmatic structure, since it is this
structure's organising principle of equivalence which is projected into the axis of combination, that
is, into the syntagmatic sequence of the message to create the focus towards the message, i.e.
the poetic function. The structure that is superimposed on the message is in fact of the same type
as the paradigmatic structure. This superimposed structure, like the structure of the paradigmatic
axis, is formulated “on the base of equivalence, similarity and dissimilarity, synonymy and
antonymy”. Thus, Jakobson, sees the criterion of the poetic function of a message as the
repetition (total or partial) of sounds, meanings, of complete signs, of intonation patterns and so
on. In this way, in addition to the normal relations between words in a sequence, i.e. relations in
praesentia or of contiguity, there is incorporated into the structure of the sequence a
supplementary set of relations, based on the criterion of code-determined equivalence.

“The Modes of Modern Writing” - David Lodge.

J begins by formulating one of the basic principles of structural linguistics deriving from Saussure:
that language, like other system of sings, has a two-fold character. Its use involves two
operations, namely selection and combination. This distinction between selection and
combination corresponds to the binary oppositions between langue and parole, between paradigm
and syntagm, between code and message. Thus:
Operation of selection → related to langue, paradigm, and code (in R. Barthes's analogy, it's the
set of pieces which cannot be worn at the same time)

Operation of combination → related to parole, syntagm, and message (in R. Barthe's analogy, it's
the juxtaposition in the same type of dress of different elements)

Metaphor:
Selection involves the perception of similarity and it implies the possibility of substitution. It is
therefore the process by which metaphor is generated, for metaphor is substitution based in
some kind of similarity. Metaphor, then, belongs to the selection axis of language. However,
awareness of difference is essential to the metaphor. It's an essential feature of a metaphor that
there must be a certain distance between tenor and vehicle. Their similarity must be accompanied
by a feeling of disparity, they must belong to different spheres of thought.
Let us consider the sentence: “Ships crossed the sea”. “Ships” has been selected from a
paradigm of words with the same grammatical function and belonging to the same semantic field.
However, if I say “Ships ploughed the sea” , and I substitute “cross” for “plough”, I generate a
metaphor. I am substituting one term for another on the basis of similarity, but at the same time,
there's a distance between tenor and vehicle.

Metonymy:
Metonymy is a figure of speech in which the name of an attribute is substituted for that of the thing
meant, for example “spectre” for “authority”. Metonymy is closely related to synecdoche, which is
defined as the “substitution of a part for whole”. In J's scheme, metonymy includes
synecdoche. Metonymy and synecdoche belong to the combination axis of language. If we
say “Keels crossed the deep” we have used a synecdoche “keels” and a metonymy “deep” not on
the basis of similarity, but of contiguity. “Keel” may stand for “ship” not because it is similar to ship,
but because it's a part of it. “Deep” may stand for sea, not because it is similar, but because
“depth” is one of its properties. It may be argued that these tropes are nevertheless formed by a
process of substitution, and are not in any way fundamentally different from metaphor. In this
scheme, selection is opposed to combination and substitution is opposed to “contexture”. But
“contexture” is not an optional operation in quite the same way as “substitution” - it is, rather, a law
of language. Lodge suggests that the term we need is “deletion”. He says that deletion is to
combination what substitution is to selection. Metonymy and synecdoche are produced by
deleting one or more items from a natural combination, but not the items that it would be most
natural to omit.

Two types of aphasia:

Impressive evidence for J's argument that metaphor and metonymy are polar opposites
corresponding to the selection and combination axes of language comes from the study of
aphasia.
Aphasics who have difficulty with the selection axes of language – who suffer, in J's term, from
selection deficiency or “similarity disorder” - are heavily dependent on context, i.e. contiguity to
sustain discourse. Aphasics of this kind make “metonymic” mistakes.
In the opposite type of aphasia - “contexture deficiency” or “contiguity disorder” - it is the
combination of linguistic units into a higher degree of complexity that causes difficulties. Word
order becomes chaotic, function words disappear, but subjects remain. These aphasics tend to
make metaphorical mistakes.
The metaphoric and metonymic poles:

The development of a discourse may take place along two different semantic lines: one topic may
lead to another either through their similarity or their contiguity. The metaphorical way would be
the more appropriate term for the first case, and the metonymic for the second. In normal verbal
behaviour both processes are continually operative