On
the
Poetic Function
of Language
MILOSAV Z. CARKIC
(Belgrade)
0.Inorder todefinepoetic function of language oneshouldfirst define preci sely theconcept ofpoetic language. However, prior to this it is necessary to esta blish the definition oflanguage and its primary function. Language presents a system of different language signs (phonetic, morphological, syntactic and lexi cal) which are all in mutually defining and complementary relations. It is apro ductofa languagecommunity andfrom this fact its basic function ofa commu nication instrument derives. In order to be able to function as a means of communication language must have certain elements which are commonto all members of the language community.In the course ofitsuse a language canbe realizedindifferentways.As aresult of one ofthese realizations thepoetic lan guage is generated. It does not represent onlythe use of the poetic language in poetry and rhymed verses but also its use inall kinds ofliterarytexts. Consequ ently thepoeticlanguage is understood as i poetic modelling oflanguage mate rial. Thisiswhythe poetic function of language is language-expressionoriented: it focuses on language form and structure.
1. Basinghis philosophyof language on the results of phonologywhich relies initsanalysis on theconsiderations of the communitactionfunctionsof langua ge, KarlBuhlerhas worked out three basic functionsof language: emotional (or expressive), conotational and referential (Buhler: 1993, 19-90). However, as it has been showen laterby Roman Jacobson this triadic system of language func tions does not exhaust all theaspects of language.Hehaspointed out that in eve ry act of language communication three more factorstake partsothat three more functions aree added: phatic, metalinguistic and poetic (Jacobson: 1966, 285-324). Each of these six functions canbeexpressed eitherinan ordinary way or itsexpressioncan be that characteristic of literary-poetic fiction and poetry. According to Novica Petkovic ‘The description of all functions, however, has
Stylistyka VII
not been completedimmediately - rather one function ata time has been articu lated and defined (the job in which both linguists and literarytheoreticians have participated and in which the part of modern poetry has been considerable)’ (ПетковиЙ: 1995, 9). The poetry from the beginning of the 20th century has thus, byits new means ofexpression,pointedto the fact thatreferential meaning can be denied1.It is probably because of that thatRoman Jacobson,talkingabout poetic functionof language, haspointedout that: ‘Concentration onthe messa ge2 as such and focusing on themessagefor its own sake- that is the poetic fun ctionof language’ (Jacobson: 1966,294). Such interpretation of the poetic func tion of language is nothing but anattempt to deny referential meaning andto di rect the essence ofall language communication towards acting by means of speech. At the time whenthis definitionof the poetic function of language was put forward the very concept of the poetic language had not yet beenprecisely defined and pinpointing of its characteristics was in many cases insufficiently clear. The concept of‘poeticlanguage’ comes fromthetime whenliterature was referredto as poetry orpoetic art. Itwas not used to refertothe use of natural language in poetry onlybut torefertotheuseof languagein all kindsof literary texts.Today the poetic language isdefined as a ‘specific organization of speech sequence which is experienced and appreciatedas the artistic modelling oflan guage material’ (ПетковиЬ: 1995, 104).Such definitionof the poetic language means that there is a need for additional segmentation and organization of the language sequence, variation of the syntactic order, interweaving of language units, connecting ofdifferentsemantic categories, frequentuse of thetropes, the
1 There have been such sporadicattempts before. Asan example we give thefollowing quotation from Aristophanes’ comedies. (...) Брзо на клик слетите ми амо Триото, триото, тотобрикс! Ви,у долу што до бара давит занате Комарце луге, ви, по росним м]естим’ Поy6aeoj ливади на Маратону. (...) Све на договор дед dotfre! Амо, амо! Амо, амо! Тороторотороторотикс! Киккабау, кикибау! Тороторотороторо, лилиликс! (...) (Birds).
2 Jacobson’s statementthat thepoeticfunction of language is‘directed towards themessage’ isnot clear enough andit is not precise either.Lotman’s statementthat thepoeticfunctionof language is manifested as the ‘information on thecode’(Lotman: 1970, 261) is closer tothe truth.
On the Poetic Function of Language
MILOSAV Z. CARKIC
use ofcertain number ofgrammatical constructions, words and twists,violation of language norms on all levels.
2. Of the sixfunctionsoflanguage,thereferential andpoeticare attheendof the scalewhile the emotional, conotational, phatic and metalinguistic, conditio nally speaking fill the space between these two functions. That this is so is shown by the very direction of the referential and poetic function. The referetial (‘denotational’, ‘cognitive’) function is directedtowards the language expres sion of the very ‘object’, which ‘servesthe function ofcommunicatingwhatthe statementis reallyabout,thoughtexpression, thinking and the intellect’ (Lesic: 1979, 123); poetic function, on the other hand is language-expression oriented (focusing on thelanguageform and structure). Jacobson’s differentiation ofthe sixaspects and functionsof languagedoesnot mean a real decomposition of lan guage into its functional constituent parts; rather, it has to do with linguistic abs tractionand generalization.None of the individual languge functions hasan in dependent existence - rather, they constitute a complex functional whole in which, in the course of communication bymeans of natural language, some of them are brought to focus and other functions aresupressed. Having allthis in mind, it is understandablewhy itis necessary in thestudyofthe poetic function of languageto go beyond theboundaries of poetryintothedomainof allareasof language activity because the poetic function is not an exclusivecharacteristicof poetry and poetic expression).
3. Since the poetic function oflanguage isofprimary importance for aliterary piece one should bear inmind thatthere is the conceptual difference between ‘the language ofa literary work and literary style’ (Lesic: 1979, 30). The first concept refers to the very nature of language which is used in literary works (a lyricalpoem, a novel or aplay) i.e. inthe works ofcertain artistic valuewhich have different structure but which are given thecharacteristic of conceptually the same context by thenature ofartistic creation.The second concept refers to every particular use oflanguage structure (in aphilosophical, political, moral, memoirecontext) where its characteristics are identicalor similar. This distinc tionhas been rightly pointedout by Charles Bally. He realized that thelanguage of a literary piececould notbe treated inthe sameway as the language in other uses and especially in colloquial speechsothat he excluded it altogetherfrom his esearch(Bally: 1951,19). Bally drew theattentionto one important intention of a literaryauthor so that it differsfrom everyday languagenotso much in its form as in its function. Thisopened the possibility forother researchers toview the means of language expression ina literary work notin the context oflingui stic but artistic purposes. This pavedthe way to the more complex understanding
Stylistyka VII
ofthe poetic function oflanguage. In this way the researchers came to realize that themeans oflanguageexpression in a literary workhadto beanalysedwith
respect to their estheticeffectwithin the contextin which they appear. Jan Mu-karzovski was one of the first todraw the attention to theesthetic side of languge expression. He, however, did not pay attention to theesthetic side of language only but to theesthetics in general singleing outthe three aspects: function, norm and value.
When he stayed withinthegeneral domain oflanguage,Mukarzovski used to point out that ‘the esthetic side of a language isto be lookedfor in all kinds of language manifestationsand notonly where itprevails (namely in poetry) and, the other way round,neitherin the poetrymustthe researcher gloss over all the nuances of the communicative function and their importance for the poetic construction’ (Mukarzovski: 1986, 9). In this waythe concept of information which is usedin esthetics theory can be treated as theesthetic information which acquires informational content to thedegree in which the esthetic symbolsand their combinations are successfullyreduced to signswhich exist inreality.Infor mationas suchmeans nothing more than the means of measuring order. It refers to particular distribution(unusual, original) which ismostfrequentlyto be found in poetry. The measure of order expresses structural characteristics of a literary (poetic) piece representingakind of negationof the enthropy (disorder). As a consequence of this everypoetic work, as an esthetic activity, takestheshape of acreative process which is governed by the principles ofindividualization and differentiation (Bense: 1978, 43).
4. Availing itself ofall previous experience acquired in the processofstudy ing language structures contemporary linguistics has come to realize that in some language expressions there is an increasing orientation towardstheformof the expression,towards its formalquality which results in the fact thatthe lan guage structure is particularly emphasized . 3 Orientation towards the organiza
3 As an illustration of this we shall quote four lines from the poem: Samson and Dalila byЛаза KocTtth: У тамнициje сужаю, окован, у тамници je главанарода, утамници je снага народа у тамници je нада народа (КостиЙ,Л. Поеме, 1909, 250)
In thequoted verses the languagefunction isdirectedtowardsthe ‘information code’ i.e.theform and structure of the language phrase.That it is so, it is enough tonote thatout of twenty lexemes that have been used only five are notrepeated.Thismeans thatthe poettried to shrink referential meaning so that the formalaspect of thephrasecan bearthebiggestquantityof information.
On the Poetic Function of Language
MILOSAV Z. CARKIC
tionof language expressionfor its own sake,as it is well-known, Roman Jacob son called the poetic function of language. However, every kind of poetic expression is notexclusively the propertyof poetry butalsoofany form ofhu man language expression. It is logical, however, that the form of a poetic expres sion (along other forms such as: commercial, political, religious etc.) is reflec tedto its utmost in poetry (where by defiition the poeticfunction dominatesover other language functions whichare also present). This shows that onehas to be very careful not to equate the poetic functionof language and the languageof poetry.This was expressed in itsexaggerated form by Benedeto Croce whosaid that‘at every momentof his speech a man talks like a poet becausehe, like the poet, finds the way to express his impressions and feelings;(Kroce: 1934, 35). The tendency towardsthe realization ofthe poetic function of language ‘is not the intention only ofa poet but alsoof all those who wishto talk and write well. This is a characteristic ‘notonly of literature creation but ofa literary style as well’ (Lesic: 1979, 35). The difference pointed out by Jacobson,which isdueto the shift ofemphasis and not to thechange of quality, remains: ‘Poetic function isnot the only function of language art butonly itsdominant, definingfunction; in all otherlanguageactivities, contrarytothis, it actslike a subsidiary and mar ginal constituent’ (Jacobson: 1966,294). Variability ofthe poetic functiono lan guage is equally important for allthe aspects of humanlanguagecommunication and for the various forms of literary art. This is why Jacobson,and rightly so,po ints out that‘everyattempt to reduce poetic function to the sphere of poetry or restricting ofthe poetry tothepoetic function would representa dubiousandde ceptive simplification’ (Jakobson: 1966,294). Thisshows that within the langu age of a literary work there is the distinction which pointstotwo different styles or to two different ways of the use oflanguage within the scope of the art of lite rature creation. One ofthem is characteristic for poetrywhich ischaracterized with the richess oftropes, soundandintonational figures,rhythmicaland melo dious organization oflanguage material - this maximizes the orientation to wardstheveryform of language structure whichthus acquires aprominent po etic function. The other style is a characteristic ofthe literary fiction pieces which are characterized by the noticeable lack of tropes and literary figuresas well as by theabsence of other‘embelishments’ Inthis way such works appro ximateeveryday language where the poetic function gives way tothereferential and message-bringing function oflanguage. Therefore, it can berightly stated that the type ofthe language structuresused in poetryare poetically organized since thelanguage ofreal poetry ‘presentsits subject on morethanonelevel be cause one and the same expression has more thanone function inthestructure of
Stylistyka Vil
meaningpattern ofwhich itisa part’ (Nowottny: 1965, 2). That whichis impor tant forthenature of different literary works is not less importantfor all different types oflanguage organization. It isthe matter only ofa relationship between strictly poeticalandstrictly referential ina language;in otherwords, it isthere lationship between the pure form and pure message which is establishedonboth qualitative and quantitativelevel. This is why there isaconsiderable typological difference between their languagestructures. This difference is quite evident in the domain of various literary artistic creations but there, quite the opposite to whatwe havein the domains ofall other language activities, the result ofacrea tiveact (where the facts turn into artefacts and theevidence into creativemaster piece) includes a poetic function which varies in its intensity.
5. Every member of the languagecommunity who takes part inoralor written communication hasat his disposal different kinds of language structure (gram matical forms, lexical units, syntacticconstructions etc.) which can be used ac cording tothe rules of the general language usage oraccordingtothe rules of po etic art. Whether it is the case of the general (popular) or idiosyncratic (complex) form ofpoetic expressiondependson theveryway in which the lan guage is used. However, evenwhen using the language poetically and with the esthetic purpose in mind, the poet who is actuallymodelling thepoetic expres sion and itscontent is obligedto respect certaingeneral language rules andlite rary conventions so that the communicationbetween thepoet (encoder) andthe decoder (readeror listener) can be established.Therefore, the poet must bear in his mind that when he creates his piece of poetic work it should be ‘well-organized, finished and rounded-up structure which has been formed on the principles ofcoexistence, interrelations, correlations and the dynamic cohe rence of strictly definedmeans and elements ofthe poetic expression’ (Вино градов: 1963, 131). The relation between two end-point language functions -referentialandpoetic canbe thus undestoodasthefactthatall that goes beyond communicative,referential form of language belongstothe realm of the poetic language and it becomes thesubject of the poetic function of language. This me ans that all stylistic forms like emphasis, rhythm, euphony, symetry, synonymy, evocative andaffective quality of the expression,allexpressive language means and all formal language inventory are included into the structureof the poetic function. In this way, the concept of the ‘poetic’ approximatesthe conceptof ‘style’ and becomes even identical with it. Roman Jacobson was inclined to make suchequation. He, however, treated the subject in reverse order and he cal ledstylistics poetics: ‘Poetics predominantlydealswith the question‘What ma kes a language message a pieceof art?’ As themain subjectof poetics is diffe
On the Poetic Function of Language
MILOSAV Z. ÓARKIC
rentia specifica of the language art compared to other kindsof art and other kinds of languageactivities, poetics takes the leadingposition in literature studies’ (Ja cobson: 1966, 286). VictorVinogradovwas almostof the same opinion stating that literary stylisticsand poetics had the sameobject of study (Виноградов:
1963, 79). For Zdenko Lesic it became obvious ‘that literary stylistics andpo etics want very much to identify themselves with the literary criticism; (Lesic: 1979, 69). All this points to the factthat both poetics andstylistics exemplify the poetic function of language.
6. All statements thathavebeen presented so far, although very much diffe rentfrom each other, agree in thatpoetic language (language of poetry) is a spe cific functional structure in which poetic function prevails so that it is different from all otherfunctional registers. They also agree that not a single language manifestation is restricted to one language function only, ratherbesides oneba sic (primary)function there areother side (secondary) functions whichmake up functionalwhole of a particular language act. However, what is particularly im portant is the degree in whichdifferent language functions make useofthe lan guagecomponentsattheirdisposal i.e. what is the degree ofthe realization of thecomplete inventory of the elementswhich constitute the system ofthe natu rallanguage. Althoughin the case of the poetic use of the language major part of thelanguage potential is activated only a small number oflanguage components are elevated to the level of poetic effect (this numbervariesdepending on the verystructureofthepoetic (artistic) work. Inorder to understandthe poetic fun ction of language better, one has to bear in mind two important facts: firstly, what a poeticwork(poemor a pieceof fiction) represents andsecondly what is the purpose of poetic creation.
(1) A poetic work is a complex but indivisible poetic and esthetic structure whose constituentelements (overtly expressedandcovert) and theirmutual re lationshipsall become its constituent parts. It exists as a complex, unigue and re gular phenomenon. All this contributestothe fact that, when consideredfroma formal point of view, a poetic work isqualitatively different fromany other com municative language act.
(2) The effort to create a language poetic work from both systematized and unsystematized languagematerial so that it establishes thecommunication rela tionship between the encoderand decoder transferring complex andvarious in formation is the aim of all poetic creation.
In certain periods oftime, when we look at it diachronically, the poets used natural language as amedium of artisticcreation but theytried to deny referen tial meaning. It happened in the period ofCubism and Futurism in Russia. The
Stylistyka VII
poetsexperimented with theirrationallanguagedevoid of its representational meaning4.They thought thatthe languagewhich goes beyond rational is a pro toform of poetry and that the works written in such language can realize
‘universal poetic language’ (Волков: 1970,430-438). Somethingsimilar happe ned again in theperiod of Lettrism.Namely, whenorganizing the verses phoni- cally, somepoets used the fact thatthelexical units have some specific sound re alization.The Lettristic poetry emergedfrom such principles. This style began in 1947 and is related to the name of the French poet Isidor Izo5 (Vuletic: 1976, 89-118).
4 Wepresent a fewverses whichillustratethe‘beyond-rational’ poetry. (...) Дверь Собачка Свежиемаки Поэт Расцелую Младенчество лет Пышет Удар Закат Нож Мальчим Ток (...) (Крученых, Садок судей). (...) О, рассмейтесь, смехачи! О, засмейтесь, смехачи! Что смеются смехами, что смеянствуютсмеяльно, О, засмейтесь, усмеяльно! О, рассмешищ надсмеяльных -смех усмейных смехачей (...) (Хлебников В., Заклятие смехом). 5 Let us seewhat forma partof Izu’s Lettristic poem has:
(...) gagada haha gagada haha gaha gaha 17!pstzoukanan pstzoukanan tzantza asnatza asnatza asnatza gantza pstoupaganne pstoupaganne pstoupagahaha pstoupagahaha
On the Poetic Function of Language
MILOSAV Z. ÓARKIC
PurelyLettristicpoems6 consist of the sound segmentswhich do not have par ticularmeaning and there is no text as sucheither. Theyinsisted only on the so und realization of words. Althoughonlyquasilexical meaningless elements were created they,however,became meaningful, xpressively strong and beautiful wit hin the context ofapoem.The ultimate achievement of the Lettristic poetrywas that they pointedout that there was a possibility of uniting poetry and music in oneindivisible sonorous art to which some proponents of Lettrism gave a theo reticalname: Hyperphonism. Beside those twoattempts to avoid the conceptual in a language, onehasto bear inmind that there are certain formsof folk art:fab les, chants, nursery rhymes in particular7, as well as some religious rituals.
6 Toour knowledge, very few contemporary Serbian poets used the elements of Lettrism.One of them was Миролуб ТодоровиЬ. (...) без авизе агентуру иaenpajy агарцима аволщуки аврл> — бавр/ь
(Avrlj - bavrlj fromthe collection Gejakglancaguljarke, 1974); and Миодраг ШуваковиЙ (...) jednмагбеттрулиледи магбетсекансе леди магбет ништа повратакмалим кукама вешалима данасje прей ¡ули 1973 проглашавам газа пеги¡ули Kpaj митова уауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауа уауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауау уауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауауаузз
(R.O.N.Sfrom the journalKoraci,11, vol11, nos 1-2, 1976, p. 48) 7 We presentfewexamples ofthe folkforms. Thechant to drive away toothacke:
Свако jyrpo добро jyTpo, Свако вече добро вече, Ал’ да тебе не затече — MajKa Бoжjaтако рече: Укамситьи нек утече Укамен,у пламен, у стрмен (Српски етнографскизборник,бр, 1, 1934, 40) A humorous poemwithcounting:
O Илща, Hanja, Поштотиjeкири]а? — За два грошаи динар, И за царски гулдинар (МиодраговиЬ J., Народна педагогща у Срба, 340) A tongue-twister: Црнjapan црном трну врхгризе; негризими, црниjapne, црном трну, црн врх!
Stylistyka Vil
7 . Poetic language(andthatmeansfirst and foremostthe poetic (verse) struc turing of thespeech sequence based upon continual parallelism (Hopkins: 1953,
13) has to bestructurally and semanticaly organized in this way so that it should simultaneously be able to convey,by means ofpoetic language communication, the following: (1)the information concerning meaningand (2)formal linguistic
information.
(1 ) Semantic informationrepresentsa process of poetic communicationwhich followsfrom thecomminication properties of a poetic workand which conveys
such content(topic, basic meaning,the essence of the message) which can be co mparedto some part of realityorsomeextralinguisticsituation(Novikov: 1983,
129). Semantic information is realized (a) as phatic information which informs the encoder on the facts, acts and processes which have happenedorwill happen
in a realor imaginaryworld (Гальперин: 1981,27) and (b)as conceptual infor mation which points to the relation between the author and the factsdescribed on the level of factual reality (Степанов: 1985, 87-90).
2) Formal linguistic information consistsof threebasic informationlayers: a) autoinformation, dealing with the form per se, b) pragmatic information - de alingwith the participants in theprocess ofcommunication and c) communica tive information - dealing withthecommunication process as a whole.The auto information consists of (1) structural linguistic information (dealing with the form, its phonetic, phonological, morphological, lexical, semantic, syntactic and textual organization), (2) standard linguistic information (dealing withthe structure of the formandits complience with the language norm),(3)stylisticin formation (dealingwiththe stylistic potentialof the structure), (4)style informa tion (dealing with thestructure as a kind of a style) and (5)estheticinformation (dealing with the form as the output of the esthetic process (Tosovic: 1988,
102-103).
Inthepoetic language which is fully exploited in literarytextsthe estheticin formation ispredominant (Гончаренко: 1988, 10); itisa complex information structurewhich deals with the processof poetic communication. Afewkindsof information can be differentiated: (a) personal esthetic information, which isthe outcome of an immediate realization of form and content,(b) catharsis informa tion whichis the outcome of the conflict relations betweenthe elements of a po etic text, (c) hedonistic information which is the pleasure-effect of the string of
Црн japan, црн три, црн брсти три
(...)(МиодраговиИ J.,Народна педагогика у Срба, 274)
On the form andstructureof these folk forms see further in themonograph: Etimologijaіmale folklome forme (Sikimi}: 1996).
On the Poetic Function of Language
MILOSAV 1. ĆARKIĆ
word signals upon the participants in the poetic communication process, (d) axiological information which is directedtowards the evaluation-appreciation moral andesthetic judgements of the reader, (e)suggestion-hypnotic informa tion whichacts upontheirrational side ofthe reader,(f) structural-formal infor mation which pointstothe stylistic quality ofapoetic work and (g) functiona l-formal informationwhich brings out concrete communicative functionsofthe constituent elements of its basic structure.
8. Finally,if everything that hasbeen said so far andeverythingelsewhichhas not been included in the scope of this article is taken into account, then we can come up withthefollowing conclusion. Poetic function oflanguage means that, firstly, all constituent elementsof a naturallanguage have to become active so thatthe language could become aneffective means of creation ofauthenticand unique works of art and secondly, that the natural language shouldbe transfor med into a specific means of communication which will convey, via specific structural andestheticorganization,a very complex andmulti-layered message. Toputit simply:poetic function ofa languageis a way oflanguageusewiththe purpose of creating a work of artby means ofwords andconveyingan unusual aspect ofinformation.
Literature
Bally Ch., 1951, Traité de stylistiquefrançaise, Paris. Bense M., 1978, Estetika, Rijeka.
Bühler K., 1933, Die Axicomatik derSprachwissenschaft, Kant-Studien 38, Berlin. Гальперин И.Р., 1981,Текст какобъектлингвистического иследования,Москва Гончаренко С.Ф., 1988, Стилистический анализ испанского стихотворного
текста, Москва.
Hopkins G. M., 1953, The journals andpapers, London. Jakobson R., 1966, Lingvistika ipoetika, Beograd.
Kroće B., 1934, Estetika kao nauka o izrazu i opśta lingvistika, Beograd. Leśić Z., 1979, Jezik i knjizevno djelo, Sarajevo.
Lotman M. J., 1970, Predavawnja iz strukturalne poeetike, Sarajevo. Mukarzovski J., 1986, Struktura pesnićkog jezika, Beograd.
Новиков А. И., 1983, Семантика текста и ее формализация, Москва. Nowottny W., 1965, The Language Poets Use, London.
ПетковиЙ H., 1995, Елеменмти кюижевне семиотике, Београд.
Степанов Ю. С., 1985, В трехмерном пространстве языка, Семантические проблемы лингвистики, философии, искусства, Москва.
Stylistyka VII
ToSoviC В., 1988, Funkcionalnistilovi, Sarajevo.
Виноградов В., 1963, Стилистика. Теория потической речи. Поетика. Москва. Волков А. А., 1970, История русской литературы XX века, Москва. Vuletid В., 1976, Fonetika knijzevnosti, Zagreb.
