Lectures on aesthetics

(1)

Roman Ingarden

Lectures on aesthetics

Literary Studies in Poland 11, 15-37

(2)

Lectures on A esthetics

Lecture Thirteen

It can give us perhap s a b etter insight into the problem at stake here, nam ely the problem o f relationship o f the ontological, particularly physical fo u n d atio n to a com pleted w ork o f art.

P erhaps the problem looks sim plest and clearest in the case o f literary works. Im m ediately let us introduce certain co n strain ts: an oeuvre in the sense I w ant to refer to here is literary when fo rm u lated in a given language and prim arily in spoken form o f it. N aturally, there are also w ritten w orks. But then the m atter becom es com plicated because on the one h a n d we have this recording and on the o ther a creation in which there is a sound factor. W ithin a certain period o f tim e o r in certain languages—it m ay seem that the problem o f w ritten w orks o r record is som ething th a t altogether does no t belong to a literary oeuvre, th a t we should then lim it a litera ry w ork o f a rt only to those pieces which are vocalized o r spoken, to use an o th er phrase. But it also is a fallible view. T h us we have to explain certain issues: particip atio n or co p articip atio n o f the fol lowing fragm ents o r elem ents o f a literary w ork o f a rt: the graphic side, th a t m eans the recording, the aspects o r if you will stratu m o f the language sound, linguistic-sonic we m ay call it. T his is a body o f linguistic sounds o f a linguistic creations, and here I am no t saying “w o rds” a t a ll—because this is only a special case o f this soun d elem ent in a literary w ork. T he th ird elem ent o r stratu m is the stratu m o f senses, m eanings som ehow related to the sound creation and perhap s also to the graphic creation, or the record.

(3)

16 R om an Ingarden

T he fourth one is the stratu m o f w hat we talk a b o u t, i.e. the stratum o f objects rep resen te d —an d here th e w ord “o b ject” is used ra th e r loosely, it m ay stand both for things as well as fo r people, processes o r events. A nd, finally, there is in this register a fifth elem ent —the elem ent o f external appearances, generally speaking an elem ent o f visual perception in the literary art. All o f them are som ehow inter-related an d in such a way th at if we tak e p artic u la r phases o f a literary w ork, this second aspect o f developm ent o f a li terary work from the beginning to the end, then in each o f its phases there a p p e ar diverse stra ta o f literary w orks o f art as given above. As I ju st said they are diverse but I did n o t say “all o f th em ” — because first o f all th ere is an issue how it is w ith this graphic recording an d secondly, now, there is a certain difficulty a b o u t these external appearances, a b o u t this visual perception which occurs in a literary w ork o f art. A t any rate, at least som e o f these elem ents m ust co-occur in o rd e r to m ake up a phase o f a literary w ork o f art.

T he second aspect is already not a m u lti-stratum one b u t a m ulti- -phase aspect o f a literary w ork. Every oeuvre o f literatu re consists o f a t least one sen ten ce—a single w ord does n o t create a literary w ork o f a rt unless accom panied by an exclam ation m ark o r som ething like th at so th a t it could be regarded a kind o f acronym ic sentence. C onsequently, the m inim al unit o f sense which com es in to play here is a sentence. H ow and o f w hat th at sentence is con structed is a new question an d in m any languages it can be solved in different ways since it depends on the stru ctu re o f a given language. In general, the analyses perform ed in this co u n try are im plem ented with a certain specific linguistic m aterial, nam ely, with the Indo- E uropean languages. H ow these problem s app ear, for exam ple, in C hinese o r in various Indian languages is n ot fo r me to com m ent on here. I sim ply d o no t know m uch a b o u t it.*

It is an open question w hether analyses I carried out in m y book are also applicable to p rod ucts in C hinese o r Indian languages o f one or an o th er type. In effect, the validity scope o f my statem ents th at are considered tru e is not so vast perh aps as to em brace

(4)

all hum an languages in total. 1 do not want to engage m yself in th at issue, perhaps it is so, perh ap s it is not.

Let us now deal a little closer with the role o f the graphic o r possibly sonic factors. I said th a t in different periods o f time things could look differently. B ut undoubtedly such a period existed w hen m en were recounting diverse tales an d histories while being unable to jo t them dow n. W riting as such was not know n then and even if it was it h ad been m astered by only a select group, so, in effect, literary w orks o f a rt were tran sm itted by o ral com m unication. It sim ply w as necessary to know how to m em orize them , repeat, tell long tales, o r even sing. W hen a form o f tak in g record becam e av a ila b le—one or an o th er, it is qu ite im m aterial, be it a w riting system using L atin alph ab et o r G reek o r the cuneiform s, o r still som ething else, som e w riting system an y w ay —it could seem at first th a t this writing and the sound are tw o com pletely different things, totally independent o f each o th er an d no t creating any unit o r entity w ith the fram ew ork o f a literary w ork o f art. P articularly since only a few were able to read an d write. Yes, we can say the follow ing: literary w orks o f a rt totally devoid o f the graphic facto r were an d are possible. But then this graphic facto r virtually began to co-occur with the sonic one a n d to d a y we are so m uch accustom ed to it th at for us, if I m ay say so, the “physical” a sp e c t—it is erro n eo u s w ording b u t let us leave it aside for the m o m e n t—o f a w ord o r a language is “d o u bleform ed” as it were: next to the visual aspect, a certain graphic record, there is a phonetic aspect o f the vocal sound. O nce we m aster a given language well enough then b o th aspects som ehow conflate. W hen speaking we som etim es im agine a sort o f graphic s h a p e ; while w riting, or reading, we recall the sound form o f the w ord. So there is som e sort o f “doublefacedness” o f the “physical” aspect o f the w ord an d o f a language in general. If, in additio n, it seems to us th a t w ritting is phonetically perfect (which, naturally is a gross prejudice since there is no strictly phonetic writing, it is always m ore or less n on-phonetic; an d the degree to which it is n on -phonetic we learn a b o u t when leaving o u r native tongue th a t we consider w ritten pho netically )—then this “physical” side o f the w ord in term s o f sound an d sight seems to us as if grow ing together in one entity. W hen, how ever, we u n d erstan d th a t phonetic w riting is an u nreachable goal then we realize th a t the sound o f w ord

(5)

and its g rap h ic im age o r record are tw o different signs. We realize this when we start in o p eratin g w ith a foreign language. Let us suppose th a t we are in a situatio n where we com e into co n tac t with English first via printing an d then they start talking to us, etc. A t the m om ent we talk m ostly with those w ho arrived to visit us, o r who were learning here and som ehow we u n d ersta n d them , and then one day you suddenly land in L o ndo n o r N ew Y o rk and you are frightened because you u n d erstan d absolutely nothing. T he graphic aspects o f the w ord which you considered a physical recon structio n o f sonic w ords is so different th a t listening to a w ord in its ph on etic form you ca n n o t at all link th a t phonetic shape o f the language with its graphic aspect. Especially if som eone was learning the Latin alp h ab e t an d then suddenly found him self in th e area o f the English alp h ab et w here the phonetic value o f / is o th er th a n the Polish /, usually closer to Polish aj\ and the English e is / in Polish, etc. They are tau g h t this from the very beginning b ut we en tered a n d grew up w ithin the realm o f the L atin variety o f the alp h ab et, even keeping L atin nam es for letters. It is quite an interesting thing th at today, in fact, there exist tw o English languages; I d o n o t want to talk ab o u t the British and th e A m erican varieties an d th a t there exist diverse slangs, etc. but at any rate th ere are the p rin ted an d the spoken form s o f the language. Sim ilarly, there are tw o F rench lang uag es—the p rinted and the spoken, an d n atu rally there are also tw o Polish languages, the printed and th e spoken, except th a t we d o not realize this as clearly until we meet with a p rop osal to accept a new way o f spelling and they tell us to w rite nusz w bżuhu, nusz instead o f nóż, etc., then we get annoyed an d ask why these w ords are to be w ritten like th at since after all it w ould be sim plest to write the way we write. T hen we becom e aw are o f the discrepancies between the w ritten an d the spoken form s o f language. D ue to these differences when we read H om er in G reek today we actually have no H om er in the original since we only have G reek record s; we allegedly know how to read it but was it really read th at way or is it truly the original G reek or the N eo-G reek, is this the original an d p ro p e r one, the elem ent o f the w ork o f literary art, well, we d o not know it. T here is a vide range o f varieties which we cann ot analyze very precisely. In L atin the situation is the sam e — when a sm all boy I used to say “spacium ” and now we say “ spatium ." o r “C ycero”

(6)

tu rn ed into “ K ik ero ,” “ K ezar,” etc. P hilologists tell us now th a t this is the way to pronounce but fo r exam ple when you go to P aris and the G ospel is read from the pulpit you absolutely can n o t com preh end the L atin text th at you know because it is p ron ounced in a com pletely different m anner. Why th a t p artic u la r pro n u n ciatio n is to be m uch b etter th an ours is no t clear to m e; in Italy they p ro no u n ce it in still a different way an d I will no t even m ention how they read Latin in A m erica. It shows here th at a t such im m aterial things as a news item from jo u rn alists o r any o th er news item it does not m atter w hether som ething is pronounced in a way slightly different from the w ritten text as long as the com m unication process is on. In a w ork th at is to be an oeuvre o f literatu re in the sense o f the w ork o f art th at problem begins to grow very im p o rtan t —what form o f the vocalized language is linked with w hat form o f w ritten language in o rd er to becom e an elem ent o f a w ork o f literary art. F o r people reading in their native tongue it is a n orm al th ing and situation th a t the physical side o f the w ord has, so to say, two faces — graphic and sonic. A nd th a t stru ctu re o f th at aspect o f language which is factual plays an essential role in the entire con stru ctio n o f a literary w ork o f art. W hat is im p o rtan t here is not only the adequatness o f p ro n u n ciatio n o f p artic u la r w ords in relation to the picture which the graphic signs are but prim arily the m atter o f bound aries o f the w ord fo rm —we speak so rapidly, an d are no t aw are o f th at, th a t one w ord links with a n o th e r; it is a wave o f sounds and know ing a language well we discern individual words, phonetic units. W hen, however, my m astery o f a foreign language is not good then the first difficulty I com e across is to hear individual w ords in th a t wave o f vocal sounds. W hen I have them in a w ritten text th ere are no such difficulties because every w ord is w ritten in isolation, there is a break between one w ord and an o th e r (it was not always so since there were tim es when w riting involved a co n tin u um o f sig n s—in old m anuscripts). In the graphic form o f language there is a m ultiplicity o f elem ents an d these elem ents are individual words. In the sound form this m ultiplicity is realized because we have grow n accustom ed to see the w ord in its grap hic shape and th a t shape im m ediately slices the entire wave o f spoken sou n d s in an utterance into p articu lar words. It does happen th a t in live speech we m ake breaks between w ords; I do not know at the m om ent

(7)

20 Rom an Ingarden

w hat language th at is, I think it m ust be O riental, th at I tu ne in on the ratio at tim es—som eone speaks very rapidly b u t between each w ord I hear stops, some split-of-a-second long fractio ns between one w ord and ano ther, so th at im m ediately the whole thing breaks up sonically as if into a string o f pearls. But w hen I listen to the F rench or the English the wave keeps co m ing—and 1 suppose it is the sam e when I speak P o lish —and then it is necessary to isolate units in it. H ere the visual form o f the literary w ork is o f help. Sim ilarly, the visual limits o f language units o f higher order, i.e. clauses or phrases within the sentence fram ew ork, these so-called diverse grap hic stops are also m arked, in speech they are relatively clear an d in o u r everyday life we often do fail to realize how varied they are; the m arking o f a com m a or a full stop or som e o th er p a u s e —I can hear all this only when I listen, for exam ple, to my ow n speech rec orded on tape. In m arking various stops in the sound version o f a text we are also helped by special grap hic signs, com m as, sem icolons, full stops o r exclam ation m arks, etc. In my opinion, since every such a stop is n ot due only to the functioning o f o u r b reath ing m echanism —althou gh it is also related to i t —such a stop has also a function in the logical stru cture o f language, o f a linguistic creation, then such signs called “p u n c tu a tio n ” are getting a w rong nam e since indeed they are logical signs which m ark the logical structure o f a given language form atio n, not in the vocalic but in the sem antic sense.

Well, but w hat is this graphic fo rm atio n o r vocalic fo rm a tio n th at belongs to a w ork o f literature? I agree th a t graph ic signs also belong to a literary w ork som ehow. A certain b o o k was printed, let’s say, in 1000 copies, and w hat does it really m ean ? O ne th o u san d co p ies—this m eans one th o u san d slips o f p ap e r or som ething else covered with print. There is a th ousand graphic signs o r let us put in a better way, draw ings o f these signs—one th o u san d is the same n um b er as the num ber o f the co p ies—an d these p artic u la r draw ings are n o thing else bu t a certain q u an tity o f som e chem ical substance glued o nto an o th er chem ical substance which m ay be paper, for ex am p le—in o th er w ords, it is p rinting ink an d som e sort o f paper. A nd o f course this is one th o u san d physical entities which undergo change in a n atu ral way, becom ing w arm er, colder, faded from light, etc., an d they differ am ong them selves. N o t only there are m any o f them b u t they are also different, nam ely in o ne spot the

(8)

p rinting ink stuck better to the paper producing a good im print o f a letter and in an o th er place it looks worse, in one spot the

image is blurred, in an o th er a piece o f a letter is missing, etc. if

we looked at all this thro ugh a m agnifying glass o r a m icroscope it w ould tu rn out that each o f those blotches o f ink is quite different from one ano th er, although we say the same w ord is written. W hat is this “sam e w ritten w o rd ” ?—th at m eans the sam e graphic

symbol o f a w o rd —is it a physical object? No. Physical objects

here are these one tho u san d draw ings; in addition, we can n o t even say, ju st as it is said in P oland by logisticians and positivists w ho alw ays like die Schwereinerei lokalisieren— th at it is a m o n o  shaped inscription, the w ord is a m o noshaped in scription; “m o n o shaped inscriptions” is a technical term inus here. T h us we have one th o u san d physical objects, w ords are inscriptions, sentences are inscriptions, there is one th o u san d objects o f sim ilar shape, and it is said th a t they are very sim ilar to one an other, they are not identical because they cannot be, they certainly differ in their shape, not only in th eir chemical com position and they are also differing in details. If you have a good m agnifying glass o r a m icroscope then it can be revealed th at the shapes differ very m uch from one an o th er an d th a t an identical shape is simply no t there. This is fiction if one speaks o f the same shape. But it is no t fiction if we say th a t w hat is a graphic rep resentation o f the w ord is a single shape, the sam e th at can be found in m any m ore or less sim ilar physical objects, it can be so to say im puted to this physical object which shows one and the sam e identical shape. T his “one shap e” is not a physical object any m ore b ut som ething which ap pears on a physical object, provided th at my attitu d e while I am reading is app ro p riate. But it is not yet a w ord symbol because in ord er to becom e one this single shape which I im pute in m y perceptual attitud e, and ascribe to an individual object, som ething else m ust be added. N am ely, this shape m u st have a function th a t is no t strictly speaking a physical function b u t a function o f sign sym bol. It is no t som e kind o f blackness or this or th at co lo u r on p a p e r - s in c e in itself it cannot play a role o f this type, it is nothing o f physical quality. Physical, m ay be shape or tem p erature, this or th at kind o f m ove m ent, re fe c tio n o f light rays in one way o r another, positioning o f m agnetic fields in one or an o th e r d eploym ent; to be a sign o f som ething, well, not a single physical object can do it in an d by

(9)

itself, it is nothing physical, it ca n n o t be registered with any observation, physical ap p aratu s. Sentences o r w ords are n o t sim ply in scrip tio n s— these are inscriptions with som e specific featu re o r fu n ction (as you like) th a t is som ehow fulfilled by th a t single shape which reveals itself to us on m any diverse physical objects with a certain special attitu d e on o u r part.

These physical objects are only ontological fo u n d atio n s, which m ust be jo in ed by som e psychic subject an d used in a certain way in ord er to have a typical graphic shape o f w ord revealed, which now I m ust endow with a separate function o f being a repre sentative o f certain m eaning, pointing to som ething, referring to som ething, etc. T his does not overlap with the so-called physical aspect o f the w ord. T he same applies to the sound form o f the w ord. NVe m ust distinguish very clearly the vocal m aterial which I produce to attain the w ord-sound effect, which is new each tim e, which at its basis (in a physical sense) has a certain body o f waves in an elastic m edium . W hat we com e in tou ch w ith is n ot the body o f waves in the elastic m edium itself, it is only now a certain specific form o f physical objects th a t app ears to us, nam ely sound quality, a sound form ation cond itio ned on the one h an d by configuration o f waves in the elastic m edium and on the o ther by a person who receives this configuration o f waves th ro u g h the ear and neurocenters an d in effect experiences perception o f the sound. But this is already som ething entirely different, som ething which is not sim ilar to the waves o f the elastic m edium . But even this concrete sound th at I produce is not identical with the w ord-sound. The w ord pies (dog) in Polish is one, or in other w ords, it has one w ord-sound, but if I repeated it tw o o r three tim es th en each tim e I produced som ew hat different concrete sound form s, different vocal m aterial, slightly different because one tim e I said it slightly louder, or with a little lower voice, a n o th e r tim e —very sharply or very softly, with ho arser or less hoarse voice, at one tim e I spoke with my usual voice, next tim e I did it the way my wife does it, rising the pitch o f my voice, etc. All these changes which take place between those vocal m aterials are certain realia which belong to the w orld o f som e vibrating m edium . But these are n ot the elem ents o f language.

I do n o t claim th a t only purely language sound-form o f the word belongs to the w ork o f lite ra tu re —som ething else belongs there.

(10)

to o : the enunciation, tone with which one sp eak s—again typical and n o t in d iv id u a l—all these som ehow belong to the literary oeuvre (as we shall see later, it applies in p articu lar to dram as). But at this p o in t I am only referring to the fact th at the w ord-sound is neither a configuration o f waves within an elastic m edium , n o r it is a concrete sound, vocal m aterial produced by m yself but it is a certain typical so u n d -fo rm on the b ackgro und o f vocal m aterial which reveals to m yself w hen I take an ap p ro p riate perceptual attitu de. T hus I can listen to vocal m aterial w ithout having any w ords. In this way I usually listen to the b ark in g o f my dog, where som e vocal m aterials present them selves to me and I do not take them for the sound- -form o f w ords which my dog addresses to me. In certain situations to d ay w hen I already know this d o g very well and know his behaviour I realize that he not only produces certain sound m aterial but is b ark ing, as 1 say. in a characteristic m anner: now he w ants to go for a w alk an d is angry w ith me if I sit hom e to o long while he should have been o u t long ago. O r he com es to me, positions him self behind me an d produces a low gro w l—this a m atter o f a quasi-w ord, he som ehow signals som ething to me, I already know what because I have learned it. C onsequently, not only w ithin the range o f hum an language but also w ithin the fram ew ork o f some m odes o f behaviour o f an im als tow ards us we can be either oriented on pure vocal m aterial o r we can trea t it as the sound o f one w ord or an o th er from a specific language. O nly those typical w ord form s th at are no th in g physical consist for elem ents o f a literary oeuvre.

Lecture Fourteen

M ay 24, 1960

Last tim e I talked ab o u t the ontological foun d atio n o f a w ork o f lite ratu re in co n trast with itself a n d I distinguished between the vocal m aterial from the sounding o f w ord (analogically, it is necessary to sep a rate w riting from au d ito ry form o f w ord). W riting can either be equally diversified, non-hom ogenous, as the vocal m aterial o f p a rt icular individuals reading o r singing a given w ork, or in a certain way it can approxim ate the sound o f w ord. N am ely. I was saying th a t the sound o f word in a language is a certain typical form , ty

pical so u n d quality, one an d th e same, appearing on diverse back g ro u n d s o f voice m aterial. T he w riting o f individual persons is as

(11)

variable an d diversified as voice is, a concrete voice m aterial o r m an ners o f speaking. O n the other hand, p rintin g o r even the w riting used in copying books e.g. in m edieval times, are b oth equally typified to the sam e extent as w ord sound is. T he p o in t is to retain possibly the sam e graphic shape th at is repeated m ultiply as very sim ilar. N aturally , this shape is never identical because p rin tin g ink m ay stick to p aper in different ways, nevertheless th at special form o f p rint

resp. writing, artificial writing, so to say, used in copies and incu nab ula,

old m anuscripts, points to the fact th a t in form al term s w riting was ad ap ted to w ord sounds as typical entities. It is one o f the argum ents for saying th a t w ord is not a concrete sound but a typical sound entity revealing itself in th a t concrete sound. In b o th instances there is a greater o r lesser sim ilarity between a concrete vocal m aterial and a typical sounding an d th a t sim ilarity m ay be relatively far advanced. In general, how ever, it is ra th e r relatively lim ited si m ilarity an d therefore we m ust very skilfully orient ourselves precisely on th at typical soun ding in order to u n d ersta n d o u r interlo cutor, especially if it is a language foreign to us th a t we d o n ot use in o u r everyday life. Even if we deal with a Polish dialect, a provincial m ode o f speaking alien to us, also here we m ust a b stra c t from diverse detail o f the m ode o f speaking an d aim at this allegedly revealing itself to us form o f the P olish language th a t we are listening to. T h u s any sim ilarity between a literary w ork and its physical fo u n d atio n takes place only as the said ap p ro x im ated form o f concrete m aterial in relation to w ord sound. Because all the rest present in a literary w ork, i.e. m eaning, presented object, ap pearan ce —goes beyond w hat can be appro x im ated by vocal m aterial. A literary w ork ca n n o t be identified with this concrete vocal m aterial resp. d raw  ings. W hat is m o re —it ca n n o t be d one because the three rem aining strata and all o f their properties go beyond w hat can be realized in vocal m aterial resp. in draw ing. W hen som eone says th at a sentence is an inscription on the blackb oard com m its a falsity since the inscrip tion, th a t is a certain q u an tity o f chalk on the blackb oard, m ay have p ro perties o f som e sim ilarity or sub ord in atio n , at least som e form al resem blance in relation to the typization, bu t as regards o th er m atters connected with setting up som e ord er between w ord-sound and that draw ing there is no m eaning on the black bo ard, no presented object n o r ap p earance, etc. Therefore, we speak o f a theory o f sentences which

(12)

claim s th a t sentences are inscriptions, th a t it is a physicalistic concept o f sentence, analogically as in the case o f the psychologistic concept in w hich sentence m eaning a n d also its sound are identified with ce rtain conscious experiences. B oth these concepts are false bu t I can n o t re m ain with it here.

O ne m ore thing has to be kept in m ind at this point. A w ork o f literatu re consists not only o f w ords but also o f sentences resp. a certain m ultiplicity o f w ords ordered in som e way and linked into a n entity by their m eanings. N ow , w hen we are talking abo u t w ord-so unds, their characteristic is their being som e phonetic units, certain form s ap pearing sequentially but no t linked into a continuum ju s t like m eanings o f particu lar w ords do form a continuum . A nd o n e m ore thing th a t calls for atten tio n . I do not know if anyone h ere has heard o f it —m aybe there is a philologist or a linguist h e re —there exists the so-called sentence in to n atio n , th at is, certain w ords w ithin a sentence functioning in it as a subject, verb, a ttrib u te o r som e p ro n o u n etc. are sequenced in a certain way a n d in a certain way they are, so to say, intoned by the speaker; th ere are special ways o f stressing the subject o r the verb. I am not talk in g a b o u t those special ways o f “intoning” o r the sing-song used by the French, who u tter a sentence with a certain m elod y—we are talk in g a b o u t the sentence tune or sentence in ton atio n. This tu n e o r in to n atio n o f sentences is o f course realized in som e concrete vocal m a te ria l—but here we m ust distinguish between an individual case o f in to n atio n and typical sentence in to n atio n characteristic for a given language; it is different in Polish, o th er in G erm an, still o th e r in English o r French, etc. It is sim ply a purely form al a u d ito ry equivalent o f sentence structure and it is sub ordin ated to it. In G e rm an there is the so-called W ortfolge, i.e. certain rules o f sequencing o f particu lar w o rd s—first m ust be the subject, then the verb, th en som ething else, an d so fo rth ; if we deal with a clause, a relative clause, the verb m ust land at the very end o f one sentence o r else we m ake a m istake. If there is the so-called inverted w ord order, if a sentence begins with som e o th er p a rt ra th e r th an with the subject, then th a t p art m ust be follow ed first by the verb, then th e subject, etc. All these rules on w ord o rd e r are accom panied by ap p ro p ria te sentence in to n a tio n s —when I speak G erm an an d first p ro d u c e the subject, follow it with a relative clause as a closer

(13)

description o f th at subject then I m ust, o f course, hold my breath long enough to u tter th a t verb since I m ust m ark th a t the verb belongs to the w ords in th e clause, yet at the sam e tim e I m ust b reathe in such a way th at no one should th in k it is the end o f the sentence, th a t he knew th a t later on, after the relative clause com es the m ain clause, o r the verb, o r som ething like th at. T hus, diverse syntactic structures are already m ark ed by a p p ro p ria te m odes o f uttering as regards the sense o f the sentence, m ark ed by a p p ro p ria te sounding o f sentences which as typical ought to be distinguished from individual concrete utterance, which natu rally is an individual object th at varies, depending on any given instance.

O ne m ore thing m ust be raised concerning the sound aspect o f a w ork o f literature and its physical individual base. T he w ord, nam ely, has different functions to fulfil—one o f those functions is the possession o f m eaning an d designation with this m eaning a given object, a given state o f affairs, as regards sentence. T his is w hat one o f the 20th-century language theorists, Buhler, calls the function o f represen tation o r Darstellungsfunktion. It was B uhler who properly used the term th a t h ad been introduced earlier by others. H e defined with it the function o f w ord based on rep resen tation o f objects o r states ow ing to the fact th a t w ord has m eaning. Besides this function o f representation, th a t is, besides reference o f a w ord —a noun or a v e rb —to som ething else ow ing to its m eaning, there are also oth er functions o f the spoken w o rd —the expressive function, expres sing w hat goes on w ithin a given speaker in psychic resp. psycho p h y s ic a l term s. T hus som eone uttering a w ord in anger em its it with som e excitem ent, violently, etc., som eone else prod uces w ords a bit m onotonously, unclearly, w ithout in to n a tio n —then we say this m ode o f speaking expresses tiredness. Briefly, it is w hat is called the tone o f sp eak in g —we say: “ H e used this or th a t tone when talking to m e.” T his tone functions as an unw itting source o f in fo rm atio n for the hearer, telling him a b o u t w hat is with the speaker, ab o u t his psychic states, experiences, jo y s or sorrow s, and such like. We say: “H e said it to me with a sharp to n e ” —and it m eans th a t the speak er either willingly o r unw ittingly w anted to express his an g er; o r we say: “ He spoke to him with such advance kindness th at the o ther felt com pletely overw helm ed” etc. H e could equally be speaking using

(14)

ind ulgent tone, kind tone, the to n e o f som eone in love etc. All what hap p e n s on stage or show ra m p is classified as declam ation, i.e. artificial realization o f the expressive function which then is not related to the sense o r m eaning but to a psychic state o f the speaker and som ehow reveals th a t m ental state.

H ow it happens th a t the expressive function reveals m ental states a n d is com pletely different from the function o f m eaning, o f designation fu n ctio n in p a rtic u la r—these are especially difficult problem s in the th eo ry o f language which, naturally, I can n o t taGkle here. It is a ge neral belief th at it is easier to und erstan d w hat is expressed i.e. by m eans o f the expressive function, th an to grasp the co n ten t o r intellectual sense o f a given speech. It is said for exam ple, although I d o no t know if it is justified, th a t dog u n derstands his m aster in such a way th a t indeed it does no t understand, i.e. does not know the Polish language, does no t know w hat it m eans as they sa y —b u t from the tone o f his m aster’s voice it can figure out w hether the m aster is angry with it or gives an ord er or shows a friendly attitu d e to i t —it m eans the expressive function is em braced an d actualized here. It is com m only believed, how ever, th at dog does n o t u n d erstan d the sense o r m eaning o f w ords spoken to it. It is an experience easy to m eet with and su pp orted by the general thesis th a t in a live language we m ore easily grasp the expressive fu nction th an the representative function realized by m ean ing. I thin k th at at least in regard to som e dom estic anim als, dogs, cats, cows, etc. it is not tru e th a t they react only to the to n e and expressiveness since, a strange thing to notice, we can say som ething w ith the sam e tone in Polish, o r in English or in French — an d the dog either reacts o r does no t react at all depending on the d o g being accustom ed to a given language, on his “ learning” o r n o t o f th a t language. O n various occasions in the U nited States I asked in Polish families in what language their dogs should be ad d res se d —E nglish or P o lish —otherw ise it w ould not react. C ertainly the dog is aw are o f the expressive function and reacts to it bu t it seems it also reacts to som ething else. In som e way it realizes the sense o f w hat is being said to it. W hat is the m iracle that w orks here is a problem in itself which, how ever, is not any m ore difficult th a n a question w hat m akes a child understand som e day th a t it is being

(15)

spoken to, th a t is, how it begins to realize th at these are not simple sounds but th a t these sounds consist for an object with an o rd e r an d in this way m ean o r possibly designate som ething.

T he expressive function is fulfilled in general by con crete vocal m aterial, by this sound form th at is realized in a given conversation. N aturally, if later on we use it in declam ation then we typify a g a in —those w ho declam e o r acto rs learn these typical ways o f speaking which express certain m ental o r psychic states. T here was a fam ous ac to r nam ed Żółkow ski, a com edian from W arsaw, w ho one day cam e to the post office and while talking to the girl selling postage stam ps he started stam m ering awfully. She says: “ M r. Ż ó ł kowski, we all know you very well from the stage, you speak so well, why are you playing tricks now pretending you stam m er,” an d to th at he says: “ W hen on stage I only pretend I do n ot stam m er.” It is a good joke, o f course, and th a t is besides the po int. But som ehow acto rs pretend on stage, pretend to be sad o r joyful, an d p roduce typical behaviour th a t goes with such m oods, particu larly the typical sound form s o f concrete vocal m aterial. Yet it is know n th a t this typ ization is m uch m ore difficult to a tta in here th a n in the case o f typical sound form as an elem ent o f language. D ifferent acto rs have, so to say, different m ethods for vocalization o f various psychic states and som e o f these m ethods carry g re a te r—as we sa y —expressi veness, o thers lesser, but at the same tim e they fulfil in effect the m ore im p o rtan t aesthetic functions, etc.

T he expressive function typified in som e vocal m aterial also belongs to at least som e literary works, nam ely to all those in texts o f which there are q u o tatio n s o f w ords used by dramatis personae. T he sim plest exam ple is any d ram a w ritten or printed and then, naturally, put on stage. In such a w ork o f literature we have simple q u o tatio n o f the persons speaking. Also in som e no vels—depending on a category o f n o v el—the a u th o r often resorts to plain quoting o f words, entire conversations between som e people, him and her, or som e gentlem en, etc. But in graphic w ork in particu lar this expres sive function is not m arked a t all, graphics is used only to outline the w ord m eaning while in to n atio n is physically unm arked, it is not typified, it simply is not th ere an d one has to use on e's im agi natio n as to w hat is the tone w hen the characters talk, q u arrel or m ake love. etc. T his is why in dram a, for instance, there is so

(16)

m uch room for talents and in tu itio n o f actors but also o f directors. D irectors suggest in which way a given play o ught to be perform ed, th a t m eans, w hat intonation o u g h t to be applied to particular sequences in o rd e r to fulfil the expressive function.

Besides this there are also o th er functions — functions o f im pressing o r affecting th e spectator o r listener, these functions being u nd er sto o d in a b ro a d sense. T he im pression relies o n triggering in the listener his understanding o f th e sense but it also affects the listener differently, in such a way th at he begins to correspo nd in sadness, jo y o r reacts to this joy with sadness, with sadness to jo y , with fear to anger, etc. T h a t is this fu rth e r function o f affecting the listener and this affecting has m ultiple features since first o f all it evokes understanding , th a t is m ental acts with the sam e m eaning o r with the sam e m eaning ado p ted in a given text in a given language. It is one o f the functions o f im pressing o r affecting. A n o th er one consists in evoking com prehension not o f the sense but o f the function o f expressiveness typified som ehow in a given w ork. Then there is the im pressing by evoking o f diverse em otional states, som e or oth er, depending on the text o f a literary w ork an d on the m ode o f utterance, i.e. on typified vocal m aterial in its tone. A nd finally, there is one m ore thing playing a role in the affecting function, nam ely evoking in the listener m ore o r less vivid im aginary pictures — so th at the listener not only understan d s w hat is spoken to him but also visualizes in the form o f m ore o r less adeq uate, m ore o r less vivid im ages from this o r th a t d om ain, which can be visual, au ditory or olfactory in n ature, etc., or a series o f such im ages th a t again are typical an d belong to the w ork o f a rt —these are the very external looks th at I talked a b o u t as constitutin g one o f the strata o f a literary w ork o f art.

But there is one m ore th in g —we m ust draw atten tio n to certain details o f the so-called typical form o f w ord, i.e. details o f w hat I call w ord-sound. Namely, it should not be surm ised th at w ord-sound is only a phonetic form ation, purely sonic. N atu rally . I am talking a b o u t a living language now. W hen I say living I d o n o t only m ean one actually spoken now, but a live language used tod ay in everyday life between subjects o f all kinds w ho u nd erstan d one an o th er, speaking the sam e com m on language. A t least some w ords are such th at sounds o f these w ords against, so to say, background

(17)

o f the purely phonetic elem ent display certain em otional, extra-sonic ch aracter and yet closely related to th at sound. T o say em otional character is p erhaps to o big a w ord. Yet som e aspects o f som ething non-physical but psychical, non-vocalic settle in this sound an d c h a rac terize it in a special way. Exam ples from various do m ain s are ab o u n d a n t in which it can be perceived that a given w ord in a given usage also includes som e sort o f extra-p ho netic ch a rac te r im posed on the very w ord-sound. F o r exam ple, one o f G erm an philosophers o f language, Julius Stenzel —a form er professor in H alle, dead now because H itlerites killed him d uring the w a r—prod uced several editions o f a book Sprachphilosophic\ giving in it the follow ing exam ple: the first situation is taken from the Bible, it is th e story o f Job, w ho was a very w ealthy m an an d lost everything one day etc. but in hum ility he says “ L ord [Herr] gave, L o rd [Herr] h ath taken aw ay” . T his is one exam ple. T he o th er is set in a house at the time when there still existed the so-called Stubmadchen o r house m aids, an d the professor was going ou t to his lecture hall and forgo t to take his um brella from hom e. A m aid enters an d the lady o f the house says to h er: “// e r r forgot his u m b rella.” Well, this w ord “H e rr” sounds differently in those tw o situ a tio n s—not phonetically o f course, even though there are slight differences in the tw o p ro n u n c ia tio n s because in the first case we are talking ab o u t the L o rd an d in the o th er a b o u t the m aster o f the house. Even if we take the w ord ‘H e r r ’ in less contrastiv e applications th an when once we talk a b o u t the L ord an d then a b o u t the m aster o f the house, an d the p ath o s accent is gone, even then there is som e difference in sound when we use the w ord ‘H e r r ’ for the head o f a family a n d for som e m an in the street also called “ H e rr” . We know th at when som eone says “m aster” it m eans the ow ner o f a house, the head o f a family, etc. —and it is som ething quite different in m eaning from som e “H e rr” w ho was w alking along the street and say, broke his leg. So also in these instances there are some very distinct specific extra-sonic ch aracters th a t add co lo u r to the w ord-sound.

A no th er exam ple from everyday life: there are the so-called dirty w ords. In w hat way are they d irty ? —in w hat they desig n ate?—no, because it is know n th at m edicine in p articu lar created num erous artificial term s th at are used ju st to avoid using certain words regarded as vulgar, som ehow dirty. The point is not to evoke som eone’s

(18)

em barrassm en t in som e situatio ns by vulgarly nam ing a p art o f the body th a t m ust be nam ed because it m ust be treated, for instance. So there is a w ord artificially in troduced to an existing language an d th a t w ord is n o t foul. T here are w ords th at at certain time a re quite neu tral as nam es for som e social functions and later on th a t function becom es looked upon with co n tem p t; for this reason we d o not say today “m aid -servant” because it sounds offensive, you m ust say “house help” otherw ise it is im polite to address som e one this way, o r ra th e r it is u nd em ocratic. W hy is it im p o lite?—after all we are talking a b o u t the sam e th in g ; m eaning is not the cause o f th at im politeness or contem pt. T o d ay we say “ superintendent o f the h ouse,” even though it already is regarded a bit con tem ptuous but in the past people used to say “gatekeeper” an d there was nothing offensive in it —this is a social, very im p o rtan t function. N aturally, I believe th at a pure voice p h o n em at, a typical one, is neither vulgar n or pathetic. It is the c h a rac te r th a t is m arked on word an d the phenom enon is associated with not only the so-called “stro ng ” w ords bu t also concerns w ords th a t are non-descript in character, are very colloquial or refined o r very elegant (feine W orte as G erm an s p u t it). They b ear these characters on accou nt o f their sound. P artly if is related to the ch a rac te r o f an object under discussion. They som ehow follow from th at objective character. But it is strange th a t in m any instances term inology introduced a rti ficially, e.g. m edical term s, does no t undergo vulgarization or does not acqu ire im polite ch aracter in spite o f the fact th at the object is the sam e an d the m eaning is the sam e, even m ore precise one since it was established by m edical procedures. T his consequently m ust also draw atten tio n because the em otional characters, roughly calling them th a t way, can ap p e ar in concreto but generally they are typical, they are certain types o f sound form s an d these very typical sound form s are a co m pon ent o f a literary w ork o f art.

P oet uses consciously w ords o f certain sound form s, because they can fulfil a function in the entire organism o f a literary w ork owing to those characters, p articu larly as regards p ure lyrical w ork and n o t descriptive (I d o not consider descriptive poetry as lyrical at all). Sim ilarly we m ay speak ab o u t dram a, com edy; here em otional characters o f the w ord-sounds are very significant an d have a very essential function to fulfil. We m ust realize th a t a dram a, tragedy,

(19)

either ancient classical o r th at by Ibsen o r any o th er are w ritten in different languages. If we take W yspiański, fo r exam ple, an d F ren ch com edy, it becom es clear. C oncerning Polish literature, we m ay ju x tap o se e.g. F red ro an d M ickiew icz’s D ziady (Forefathers' Eve). It is the sam e epoch and in additio n F re d ro ’s verse was shaped after M ickiewicz, so in a sense it is M ickiew icz’s language b u t o n e plays a dram atic role — here I m ean “T he G re at Im p ro v isatio n ” o r som ething like it, and the o th er functions by in tro du cing certain atm o sp h ere o f joviality, etc. Yes, indeed, these are very essential m atters.

It is an interesting th in g —an d stu den t o f Polish knows it —th a t if som eone co m pares fo r exam ple Pan Tadeusz an d Slow acki’s Król

Duch (King Spirit) in term s o f em otional characters, the difference

in rhythm o f the tw o w orks is negligible, one being a 13-syllable m eter an d th e o th er 11-syllable m e te r—an d yet it is a very significant difference, very difficult to define an d analyze, in the em o tio n al ch a rac te r o f the sound o f entire text where in bo th instances purely m e lodic form ations are im posing to such an extent th a t it is possible to hear the entire m elody o f the verse o f Pan Tadeusz an d o f the verse o f Król Duch. T his m elody takes shape regardless o f w hat con crete w ords develop there, b oth are very m elodic an d the ch a rac te r o f the entirety changes em otio nally to a high degree ju s t because o th er types o f w ords are introduced. It w ould be possible to write any d ra m a by W yspiański using the so-called colloquial lan gu age—then it will tu rn o u t th a t h a lf o f literary values specific o f W yspiański will vanish because certain sounds bearing p ath o s are deleted. Som e people, particu larly right after the w ar I m et them , co uld not stand W yspiahski’s w orks since he is always so solem n, etc. Such q uality characters follow from the fact th a t there is som e em o tio n al au ra set upon typical soun d m aterial an d this au ra characterizes n o t only individual w ords bu t w hole phrases etc. T his is the reaso n why it is im possible to tran slate faithfully good, high quality lyrical poetry an d som e dram as. A n epic novel is easier to translate but to translate, th a t is to replace with sound m aterial o f an o th er language th at which occurs in a given w ork, while trying to retain the sam e m eaning, is very difficult. P honetically different elem ents bring in diffe rent em otio nal characters o f the so u n d —th a t is the cause o f the language being different. In the past, when I was young, I tried tran slatin g Rilke, V erlaine into P olish; trem endous difficulties co nn ect

(20)

ed with it are linked to the fact th a t em otional ch aracter o f a poem changes com pletely because the o ther w ord sound m aterial d oes not possess the sam e em otional ch a rac te r observed in a given G erm an o r French word. T here is a little poem by Rilke, Schlusstuck, which begins with “ D er T od is gross” —in Polish I m ust say “śm ierć’ (death). Tod has a specific p ath o s due to the deep and d ark o plus h a rd t while in Polish śmierć sounds a bit contem ptuo us, som ehow there is nothing great or m ysterious in it. Sim ilarly the word

gross plays an essential role h e re — while Polish ‘wielki’ (great) som ehow

lacks this character etc. A nd reversely, som e em otion al values o f the Polish language can n o t be rendered in either G erm an, French or English. O nce I h eard a q u o ta tio n o f the first few lines o f Part T adeusz: „O h L ithuania, my country, th o u are like good h ea lth ” in Y iddish ja rg o n ; and in G erm an it also sound s very funny. These em otional characters are related not so m uch to the tone o f utterance but to the typical sound o f the w ords including m eaning, o f course, an d they are also typical like th a t sound. They also are a p art o f a literary w ork and very essential functions are played by them in it, especially in lyrical p oetry a n d dram a.

I have discussed here all those elem ents o f a literary w ork which are som ehow related o r linked to the vocal m aterial, o r possibly to graphics, i.e. writing. W riting lacks all those em otion al characters o r expressive functions. T here is only a graphic sym bol attrib u ted to a typical w ord-sound an d the whole rest sim ply disappears, an d if we w ant to read such a w ork properly we m ust construct all o f it in o u r im agination. We m ust, shortly speaking, im agine the tone o f the utterences and w hat em otional value is to be ascribed to a given w ord o r phrase. As I said, th e whole rest: m eaning, object, situation, external looks, all this goes beyond th a t side th a t could be m arked in vocal m aterial o r in graphics or could ap p e ar in them . So if all this belongs to a literary w ork, we are dealing here with an object o f quite a new kind th an the physical, vocal o r graphic ontological fou n d atio n . T he situation is sim ilar as regards the o n to logical fo u n d atio n o f a picture. As concerns a picture, the function o f expressing em otions is com pletely absen t here. T oday, am ong the so-called literate people, a kind o f double-faced physical side o f the w ord is built, nam ely, the sound an d the m eaning so closely link into a p artic u la r entity th a t the m om ent we perceive the graphic picture

(21)

o f a word im m ediately a stron g au ditory im age o f the w ord ap p e ars an d tog ether with it the em otional elem ent o f a given sound is introduced. It is so because the graphic im age is associated with a typical sound —it is nothing m ore th an association o f the graphic form with a typical sound form , while the sound form is already colored em o tionally one way o r another.

I w ould like to touch upon one m ore issue one linked to the

entire language theory that claim s th at relationship between a grap hic symbol and sound is fully conventional and there is no reason in fact why som ething m ust be w ritten in this o r th a t w a y - i t does n o t m atter w hat graphic form is used as long as th ere is a p erm an en t relationship between them . W hat is called phonetic w riting also is not any significant linking o f whole letters but ju st som e sim plification or com plication o f m arking. Instead o f ch fin Polish) h is w ritten since

ch is not heard differently from h in the present-day language;

when it w as the case it was necessary to produ ce a different sy m b o l—it was possible to draw pictures as E gyptians did o r produce cuneiform s like the A ssyrians did. N o ta bene there is one m ore special case which also testifies to the fact that there is no essential relationship between the phonetic an d the graphic sym bol —nam ely the C hinese writing, based on an entirely different principle th an for exam ple the w riting o f E urope. T here are signs being sym bols o f co n c ep ts— but it is not the p oint now. w hat is im p o rtan t is th at the same text w ritten in C hinese characters can be read by a Japanese in Japanese language and by a C hinese in C hinese language w ithout any changes except th a t am ong w ords o f C hinese there are m any Japanese w ords and those draw ings carry som e m eaning in both languages and though they are read differently, graphically they are the same. O n the o th er hand, a F renchm an can n o t read a Polish text n o r a Pole can read an English text because sym bolism used here is com pletely different. In C hinese and Japanese tw o p honetic systems are attach ed to the sam e graphic signs and it is clear th a t the relationship is quite loose. It is an old P latonic p ro b le m —is it so th a t there is som e reific relationsh ip between a typical w ord-sound and m eaning o r possibly the w ord-sound an d the expressive function for th a t w o rd ; this is an entirely different issue which m ay be taken up fo r analysis an d solution.

(22)

psychology and by skeptical lines o f positivism —to consider relatio n ship between sound and m eaning as totally arb itra ry and conventional. A nd it is certainly true that wd can construct an artificial language at any time. The fam ous E speranto m anufactured by som eone who th o u g h t there was a need for som e universal language, som ething like L atin in the past can serve as an example. L atin can n o t be revived today, it is simply a dead language and there are notio ns th at could not be expressed in Latin. So he created E sp eran to which is a horrible thing, a m ixture o f p honetic kind o f various G erm anic, Slavic languages, etc. T he question is w hether th a t language fulfils the fu nctions o f all natural live languages. First o f all there are greater problem s with the expressive functions because sim ply speaking the w ord-sounds in it som ehow do not w ork th at way. A nd secondly, perh ap s there is som e relationship, at least in som e cases, between

w ord-sound here I take into account only the phonetic aspect and

bypass the em otional one, for if em otional features are taken into accou nt then definitely there m ust be a link between m eaning and sound, an d so this purely phonetic aspect is isolated here an d now a question is w hether there is o r is not any relationship between the designate, m eaning and sound.

I d o not intend to solve this here; a t present there are two different th eo rie s—one is the old concept by P lato th at there is som e such relationship, an d the o th e r—by D e m o critu s—opposes it. Both these concepts are repeated in language theory to som e extent even today. T his issue is im p o rtan t in term s o f structure o f a literary w ork an d structure o f lyrical pieces o r fo rm atio n o f dialogues, etc. We feel at times th a t at least in certain cases there is som e relatio n ship betw een the sound and the object resp. m eaning, nam ely at the tim e when we try to tran slate som ething very faithfully. It tu rn s out th a t there are such phrases an d such situ atio ns which cann ot be rendered faithfully in tran slatio n , th at only som e an alogon. som e p a rap h ra se can be used but then certain things d isap pear an d they ca n n o t be given such precise form as available in the source language. I was once in such a situation w hen I was w riting my texts in two languages, e.g. Der Streit um die E xisten z der W elt an d then problem s appeared not only with sound form bu t also with sound restricted by syntactic rules, sentence stru ctu re etc. I w rote Der S treit first in G e rm an because it had been m eant for H usserl, then in Polish,

(23)

an d then in b oth languages. I ca n n o t say th a t everything was a precise tran slatio n e.g. from G erm an to Polish o r reversely. T h ere are sections which q uite clearly differ in spite o f my good will to d o it the same way. N am ely, I m anaged to w rite som e things b etter in Polish an d som e o th er better in G e rm an which reflected the th o u g h t m ore precisely—an d I was not able to d o it so th a t b oth w ould be identical. T his is an im p o rtan t issue o f relation ship betw een som e languages an d cultures, between certain aspects o f reality. T his m atter was dealt with by P rofessor W eisgerberg w ho in the tw enties an d early thirties published a grand w ork on the subject tak in g a stan d th a t there is som e strict relationship betw een language in all its w ealth o f sounds and som e aspects o f w orld reality, som e cultures, som e ways o f perceiving the w orld. T hus there are m any subjects which w ould tu rn up w hen exam ining the structure o f a literary w ork but which I m ust leave alone here. They are also related to the p ro blem w hat is the physical, ontological fo u n d atio n o f a literary w ork o f art, w hat still belongs and already does not belong to such a w ork.

S hould the representative function be regarded as a doub le one? R ather, we m ight say, there are tw o form s o f the sam e fu nction o f representation except that in one case it is purely n o tio n al an d in the o th er it im m ediately suggests certain visually perceivable, cognitive acts but in both cases the po in t is to designate an object. T he object can be designated additionally by m eans o f diverse features — I desired very m uch to show this in my book Das literarische

K unstw erk— nam ely, it can be designated by such features which are

accessible in visual, sensory experience o r by features inaccessible in direct experience. W hen I am talk in g a b o u t objects present in this ro om using the language o f chem istry I m ay express m yself in such a way th a t I will sim ply use a nu m ber o f chem ical form ulas and give an account o f the w ooden tissue o f the structures in opp osition to the particle com position o f tiles, etc., b u t I cou ld also do it the way Z ola w ould do it, entering the ro o m an d startin g his description o f the way room looked an d speaking ab o u t brow n cu p b o ard s and a yellow stove o f glossy surface etc., characterizing them exclusively by those features which ap p e ar in experience. Som e one else, fo r exam ple, a D anish a u th o r H erm an n B ang characterizes people only by th eir behaviour, not by w hat they experience o r how they look like, simply by the way they m ove in different ways and

(24)

how they behave in diverse situations. It is again an o th er way o f representing by m eans o f an o th e r selection o f features but in the end all this is related to m eaning, except th at m eaning is on one occasion such th a t it determ ines perceptible features, consequently leading to occurrence o f som e recreative im age, or on an o th e r occasion it is a purely notional construction. F o r exam ple, there are two ways o f teaching geom etry — they were represented by my two p ro fesso rs—D. H ilbert an d Feliks K lein, Klein, during his lectures, was waving his hands, created solids in space and did all o f it in such a way th a t it seemed everything was visually perceptible. H ilbert w as a form alist; everything was defined operationally, nobod y could visualize anything or u n d erstand m uch (when som eone relies in his learning on eyesight then he misses the form er style a lot). I think these are only two form s o f the sam e function o f representation.

Is influencing n o t linked to every o th er speech fun ction ? O ne m ust natu lally realize th at distinguishing the functions the way Biihler did it I perform some abstracting. M ost certainly there is som e coaction o f all the functions or their interaction and effect o f these functions is the th ird : influencing is no t only a consequence o f expressing an d not only o f representation but also o f the m ode o f representation, so it is necessary to analyze here all individual cases and above all one should not speak o f individual w ords but take into account entire phrases, expressions, sentences, etc. T he expressive function is very rarely linked to a single w ord, ra th e r to the whole phrase ological units, sentences and in to n atio n , etc.

The relation occurring between a w ork o f literature and its o n to logical foun d atio n in fact concerns only som e elem ents o r some aspects o f the sound stratum o f a literary w ork while the sem antic stratu m , stra ta o f presented objects and their external ap pearance go fully beyond th a t ontological fo u n d atio n an d beyond any relatio n ship or sim ilarity to it.