Roman Jakobson was one of the most powerful minds in the 20th century intellectual
history. As a front line member of the Moscow Linguistic Circle, his contributions to
phonology, grammar and structural linguistics are very well-known and gratefully
acknowledged all across the linguistics world. But he has also made an outstanding
contribution to literary analysis i.e. poetics, by using linguistics as a tool. In his essay
“Linguistics and Poetics” he argues that linguistics (as a scientific discipline) and poetics
(one of the humanities) are not opposed to each other as commonly believed among
‘bigoted’ linguists and ‘hard core’ literary critics. Rather they complement each other and
their combined application i.e. a work of art enhances its ‘wonder’ and ‘beauty’ and does not
destroy it (as literary critics insist). The essay offers clever and convincing arguments to
prove that there exists an inseparable bond between linguistics and poetics and therefore a
linguistic model can be used for the study of literature.
Jakobson goes on to forward many more arguments to prove similarities between
politics and linguistics.
The first similarity, of course, is that both deal with verbal messages and their
structure.
Secondly, both literature and language are part of the theory of signs i.e. semiotics
and semiology.
Thirdly, being, sign-systems, both are concerned with meaning generation.
Fourthly, poetics and linguistics both deal with their data (literature and language)
objectively and in a non judgmental way.
Fifthly, synchronic and diachronic approaches are equally applicable and used in
linguistics and poetics. We study literature through historical development
(diachrony) and also study literary works of a particular time (synchrony). Similarly
language is also studied synchronically (of a particular time) and diachronically
(across time, historically).
Generally, poetics is considered to be a purposeful, value-based, human discipline
while linguistics is regarded as a mechanical, objective discipline serving no purpose.
Jakobsen rejects this distinction and claims that “all verbal messages, whether poetic or
linguistic are purposeful and goal-oriented.” Thus, according to Jakobson, poetics and
linguistics are not separate. Both are equally needed for a complete understanding of
literature.
According to Jakobson, every act of verbal communication (whether literary or any
other) requires the following elements shown in a diagrammatical form by him in the essay:
Context, Message
Addresser Receiver
Contact, Code
T
hat is to say, every verbal act requires an addresser who wants to convey a message
this message. This message is addressed to someone, the receiver. But the message can be
understood when there is a proper context, a proper contact between the speaker and the
receiver and when both follow and understand the same code.
The above six elements, according to Jakobson must be present in each speech-act.
Depending on whether the focus is on the receiver, addresser, context, message, contact or
code, there is a corresponding function which has been shown in the following scheme:
Referential, Poetic
Emotive Conative
Phatic, Metalingual
1. Emotive function
A verbal message performs emotive function when it is directed towards or aimed at the
speaker/addresser/sender. It indicates the sender's attitude towards what he is
speaking/writing about. It expresses emotions. All personal writings, autobiographies,
interjections belong to this function of language. Jakobson refers to the audition of an actor
who had to convey different meanings from a message consisting of a limited number of
words. First person pronouns are common when language performs the emotive function in a
particular writing. Lamb's essays and many of Wordsworth’s poems employ the emotive
function of language.
2. Conative function
A verbal act which is oriented towards the addressee/listener/receiver is said to perform the
conative function. All imperative sentences, political speeches and odes make use of
conative function of language. Second person pronouns frequently occur in this function.
Commands and prayers also employ this function.
3. Referential function
This is the most common function of a verbal message because most of the messages are
related to the context. It means that they refer to some objects, ideas, or things. So when
context is the element, the corresponding function of language is referential or denotative.
4. Phatic function Some speech acts or messages are phatic. Such messages serve to
establish or prolong contact. Words like ‘well’, ‘bye’, an infant’s sounds to his mother and
expressions like Nice weather for this time of the year!, How do you do?, Hello, is that
Mary? belong to the phatic function of language. It is a very useful social function of
language.
5. Metalingual function
Some messages are metalingual because they require an orientation to the code itself.
This is true in case of children learning the meanings of words during the process of
language learning. Meaning or message is conveyed when the addresser and the addressee
share the same code. The lack of understanding the code results in expressions like “I did not
understand” or “What do you mean?” In other words, when we use language to talk about
language, we are using metalanguage. Metalanguage is language about language. When we
are learning a new language or a book on grammar are examples of metalingual function of
language.
6. Poetic function
A verbal act performs poetic function when it draws the attention of the reader to its own
diction, sound patterns and syntax. The verbal acts which perform poetic function focus on
the aesthetic features of language like metaphor, simile, paradox, irony, assonance,
consonance etc.
After listing the six compulsory elements in each utterance namely sender, receiver,
context, message, contact, code and the six corresponding functions of each utterance
namely emotive, conative, referential, poetic, phatic and metalingual, Jakobson asserts that
all instances of language fulfill at least one of these six functions. It means that in each
speech act, one function is predominant but others may be a little suppressed. Thus in a
poetic utterance, the poetic function will be predominant but it will be accompanied by other
functions at a lower level. Poetic function does not operate in literature exclusively. It is just
predominant over other functions. Jakobson gives a beautiful example to prove that even
ordinary conversation may contain the poetic function of language. Anyone who says “She
sells sea shells at the sea shore” is making a plain statement in poetic language.
Jakobsen refers to a girl who was always heard saying ‘Horrible Harry’. She never said
Dreadful Harry or Frightful Harry. Though horrible, dreadful, frightful mean the same thing.
When asked why she said only horrible, she said, “Because horrible suits better.” Now she
was unconsciously using a literary, poetic device called, paronomasia, similarly, one would
always say Joan & Margery and not Margery & Joan because the first combination is
smoother.
Literary theories, too, tend to place an emphasis on one or the other function of
language. Thus the function diagram of language would be redrawn as under:
Marxist (Context-Referential)
Formalistic (Message-Poetic)
Romantic (Addresser- Emotive) Reader- Oriented (Receiver-Conative)
Structuralist (Contact-Phatic)
Metalinguist (Code-Metalingual)
To sum up poetics and linguistics need not be hostile to each other. Both are
competent to study literature. But the literary scholar should not believe that he can study
literary work without giving due attention to the medium i.e. language. And no linguist
should try to justify the investigation of literary language without taking guidance from those
who devote themselves to the study of literature. Jakobson comes down heavily on those
who oppose combining linguistics and poetics for literary studies: “A linguist deaf to the
poetic function of language and a literary scholar indifferent to linguistic problems are
equally inadequate and lop sided.”
