SOCIETY OF INDIA
Founded in 1928 and registered in 1954 under Act
XXI of 1880.
Registered Office : Calcutta University, Calcutta
Office of the Treasurer and the Secretary : Deccan
College, Poona 6, India.
Office-bearers for 1970
President : Bh. KRISHNAMURTI, Hyderabad
Vice President : A. CHANDRASHEKHAR, Delhi
Treasurer : M.A. MAHENDALE, Poona.
Secretary : D.N.S. BHAT, Poona.
Jt. Secretaries : A.S. ACHARYA, Poona and Bhabataran
Trustees : S.M. KATRE, Poona and Sukumar SEN, Calcutta
(both through 1970).
Chief Editor : A.M. GHATAGE, Poona.
Executive Committee: The office bearers and
the following elected members :
1. N.G. KALELKAR, Poona
4. P.B. PANDIT, Delhi.
2. D.D. MAHULKAR, Baroda
5. H.S. BILIGIRI, Mysore.
3. M.G. PANSE, Poona
6. H.S. ANANTHANARAYANA, Hyderabad.
and the following coopted members :
1. Masood Hussain Khan, Aligarh 4. M.Shanmugam Pillai, Madurai.
2. N.M. SEN, Poona
5. C.R. SANKARAN, Poona.
3. B.G. MISRA, Delhi
6. H.C. BHAYANI, Ahmedabad.
Committee on Publications: The Chief Editor
and the following:
R. Kelkar, Poona (through 1970)
Mariappa Bhat, Madras (through 1971)
Kulkarani, Poona (through 1972)
(founded 1931, abbreviations : IL) is a quarterly journal of the Society
which publishes articles and reviews of interest to the scientific
study of language and languages, especially the languages of India. The views expressed therein are not necessarily shared by the Editors
or the Society.
and announcements should be sent to the Chief Editor, Indian Linguistics,
c/o Deccan College, Poona 6, India.
Contributors (including reviewers) will receive 50 offprints
gratis and additional ones (if ordered in advance) at cost price.
Books, OFFPRINTS, and other items for review (2
copies) and for listing, and journals and other publications for exchange
should be sent to the Secretary of the Society, c/o Deccan College,
Poona 6, India.
SUBSCRIPTION FOR the journal,
if paid in advance, is: Indian Rs. 20; Foreign 53 shillings or 7.50
US Dollars. Cheques and money
orders should be made payable to: Linguistic Society of India and
sent to the Secretary of the Society, c/o Deccan College, Poona 6,
MEMBERS OF the Society are entitled to receive
the journal gratis and other publications of the Society at Concessional
rates. Membership dues are as follows :
Rs. 10.000; Life Rs. 100.00
35 shillings or 5 US dollars; Life 350 shillings or 50 US dollars
If a Life Member changes his address from an Indian one to a foreign
one, he shall pay the difference between the Indian rate and the foreign
SOME NOTES ON LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
of Advanced Study in Linguistics (Poona)
ABSTRACT : Literature
in the narrower sense is presented as an intersection of the use of
language and the aesthetic life and distinguished from the wider sense. The relation between it and language – especially,
the operative concept of style – is then examined from the language
end (style in language) and from the literature end (style in literature),
Finally, the tasks of the literary critics and the philologist and
examined in the light.
No matter what the vague titles of university departments
or the award of Sahitya Akademi Prizes to books on languages or the
agenda of literary conferences, suggest, language is not literature. Even if we interpret the term ‘literature’
liberally so as to include history and philosophy and mythological
texts and the literature on internal combustion engines, literature
is not even the staple use of language.
In a way it is as specialized and abnormal a use of language
as that in drawing up a contract or sending a diplomatic note.
Even the simple or the conversational style used in literature
is a special effect-we have often fondly hoped that teaching Goldsmith’s
or Dicken’s prose or Wordsworth’s or Tennysons’s verse is teaching
the twentieth century everyday use of English.
The position of Literature vis-à-vis the Use of Language on the one hand and vis-à
-vis the Aesthetic life on the other can be set out as follows. (At this point we shall adopt the convention
of using the term letters when we have the liberal interpretation
in mind and literature when the narrower interpretation is
The Use of language The Aesthetic life
Non-letters letters Fine arts Non-artistic
Literature Other arts
thus represents the intersection of Letters and Art. (We shall dispense with the adjective ‘fine’ from now on) Certain texts are re-performed from time to
time in essentially unchanged form and are considered to be worthy
of such repeated performance. Such
texts so treated in a linguistic community constitute the letters
of the community. A piece of letters need not be a work of art-for
example, a historical narrative, a religious sermon, a learned disquisition,
a philosophical argument, a school lesson, a popular riddle, an anecdote
philosophical argument, a school lesson, a popular riddle, an anecdote
about Abraham Lincoln, a spell against poisoning (provided it is not
meaningless) If a piece of letters constitutes a work of
art on the other hand, we can call it a piece of literature. There is a third possibility that we must not
overlook: a piece of letters may not be self-contained work of art,
but an ingredient either main or subordinated within a larger unit
constituting a work of art. The
libretto of an opera, the screenplay of a film, the text of a khyāl
are cases in point. Of
course any piece of letters presupposes the sustenance provided by
a language. Abracadabra or do re mi fa or oṁ
hraṁ hrīṁ hrūṁ are certainly articulate syllables
but not instances of letters. One
must grant, however, that these basic distinctions were not always
clear in historical times. The
compilations known as the Bible or the Vedas constitute a mixed bag
from the point of view adopted here.
The linguistic underpinning of letters is essentially that
of the formalized, non-casual version of languages.
This is true whether we are speaking of oral, anonymous, folkloristic
examples or of examples carrying the signature (legible or not) of
an individual author. (Incidentally this is not a distinction between
plebeian and refined strata- this last distinction cuts across folk
letters) Certain pieces of
letters constitute aesthetic objects and only some of these aesthetic,
stylized objects constitute art objects-that is, pieces of literature.
There is a derivative distinction we must recognize-the one
between re-performance of piece of letters and its study as a text
and a cultural product. In the former case we are entertaining it for
its intrinsic worth within the particular field-a riddle may be difficult,
a sermon satisfying, a legal provision full of loopholes, a philosophical
argument convincing, Judgments of this kind are to be made within
the framework, the discipline, and the raison deter of the specific
field. In the latter case the scholarly study has
to be aware of the demands of the field but has no intention of satisfying
them. It is not necessary
either to believe or to disbelieve in astrology in order to produce
a scholarly edition of a treatise on that subject.
The scholarly study of letters is called ‘philology’1
which is thus distinct from linguistics-the scientific study
of language in all its uses. The
re-performance of a work literature for the sake of its intrinsic
worth gives rise to aesthetic enjoyment.
When this aesthetic enjoyment becomes articulate and therefore
intellectualized (for example, when it gives rise to aesthetic judgments
or interpretative efforts), we speak of literacy criticism.
Literary scholarship and literary criticism may
help each other, but must remain distinct.
Even the history of literature can be undertaken from
a scholarly, extrinsic point of view or from a critical, intrinsic
point of view. Finally, there
is as it were the grammar of language of literary criticism, the attempt
to build a consistent theory of literature within a larger
theory of art. The theory
of literature is thus essentially a philosophical pursuit and a division
of the theory of art which in turn is a division of aesthetics. It may be noted in passing that there was a
tendency at one time to include linguistics and literary criticism-especially
interpretative literary criticism-under philology.
The stance we shall take from now on will be that of a literary
theorist examining the relationship between language and literature
more closely. It is obvious that the operative concept here
will be that of style, which we shall consider first from the language
end and then from the literature end.
In doing so we shall constantly bear in mind that a piece of
literature is at once a piece of letters, a linguistic artifact, and
a work of art.
Style may be defined in the context of languages as purposeful
Suppose one wants to make a chair.
One will have, then, to take note of what and how much is available
by way of raw material, money, implements, time, energy, skill, etc.,
and allow oneself to be ruled by the limits set by these.
Further one will have to keep in mind the purpose or goal in
view. How much weight the chair is going to bear.
How low the center of gravity is to be placed, how portable
or stackable the piece need be are some of the conditions that will
impose themselves. Once the
chair is ready and its design apparent, it will be seen that the limits
of availability and the limits of utility have been observed either
more or less successfully. But
then it may also be observed that the designer has also exercised
a freedom of choice within these limits.
Style then is simply this residue, this surplus.
(An unhappy exercise of this freedom or bad style must be distinguished
from a non-exercise of freedom or lack of style. And then these may be serrations where the limits are so confining
that there is left no freedom and therefore no style. Thus, in the landing of an aero plane the end
of safe and smooth lading in a given airfield and the technical means
available may leave leeway for only a single technical solution).
Examples can be multiplied.
Style may thus be discerned in what is being served at the
table, in how it is being prepared.
Two equally successful pieces of surgery may differ as to style.
And so may numerically equal batting centuries from two players. A mathematical problem may be solved in two
equipollent but stylistically different ways.
Hand-written Roman script may be either copper-plate or chancery
or print hand in style.
Style is the distinctive way carved out between availability
of resources on the one hand and functionality on the other.
In the social context we can distinguish between there sources
Style as worked out by an individual for himself.
Style as chosen by the individual from among the alternatives offered
by his society – possibly with some individual variation; and
Style as given by society as the only way of fulfilling a need.
In recognizing style in the third case the
term ‘style’ has to be stretched a bit.
Since style implies choice, one would suppose that it will
first become discernible to the one who exercise that choice. But then who is the author of the choice or the author of the style
in the third case? If society
is the author of the style, then style will become apparent in that
case only under certain peculiar conditions; (a) if a second alternative
becomes available to the members of the society in the course of time;
or (b) if an outsider compares that alternative with others he is
aware of; or (c) if a member of that society can sufficiently detach
himself from it.
this notion of style to language, one finds that style is the variation
in language proceeding from the exercise of freedom while meeting
the exigencies of the available resources of language and of the conveying
of meaning. Meaning, as a rule, originates in needs that
are external to language. The
resources of language are its conventions-you can flout them on pain
of failing to convey the message.
Of the three sources of style, the second one the individual’s
choice from among socially available alternative-is the one most commonly
operative. Language makes available more than one versions of itself. He came too soon and He arrived prematurely
thus represent two whole ways of saying things in English-each appropriate
to some social situations. Sometimes
the speaker may take even a short cut-instead of choosing between
two varieties of the same language he may choose between two languages,
at least between two dialects. This
explains the switching from standard to regional Marathi or from Marathi
to English that is typical with some Marathi speakers. In all these cases linguistic style is, as it were, readymade.
the alternatives offered by language may not come in such total ranges
but in small clusters of phonological, grammatical, or lexical traits. Some are free variants not amenable to purposeful
manipulations. At most they
may betray (rather than express) the speaker’s age, sex, locality,
etc. and turn out to be worthy of note by the listener.
(Their deliberate use in the speech of a character in a play
is of course purposeful manipulation-for example, tu, tum, and
āp in Hindi, small, little, and tiny in English; one thousand
nine hundred and sixty nine (common in documents), nineteen
sixty-nine, and one nine six nine; should go, must go;
and so forth. The choice of
one of the alternatives conveys the speaker’s purpose or intention
in the given sentence and to that extent adds up to the meaning side
of the ledger. But then it
is equally true that as the author thus chooses his way through a
stretch of sentences, he is also being the author of a style.
The expression not merely conveys the meaning but enriches
and amplifies meaning. (We
shall have an occasion later to return to this fundamental two-sidedness
of style in language) The stringing together of sentences into larger
units of discourse such as the paragraph affords even more here than
within the bounds of a sentence.
When one traces linguistic manipulation within existing conventions
in all that is meant most of the time.
Linguistic innovation in the form of foreign borrowings, archaic
revivals, neologisms, and the like is also resorted to in the service
of style-but not as frequently as one would like to believe.
there is the third possibility of equating style in language with
the style of a language as when one says that English is informal. Persian ceremonious, French clear. German literal-minded. The
point is of course that such statements are made at all-and not whether
one agrees with them or not.
one is engaged in such activities as paraphrase and summary, interdialectal
and interlinguistic translation, learning a new language, one becomes
acutely conscious that a language not merely has a phonology, a grammar,
a lexicon, and occasionally, a writing system that characterize and
identify it, but also has its characteristic stylistic code.
The prime field of operation for the stylistics of a language
is of course the business of letters-especially of the segment of
letters known as literature. It
does not matter whether you are an author, a performer, or just a
receiver. In each case you have to reckon with the stylistics or the language
concerned. (The strength of
a standard variety vis-à-vis the non-standard varieties often lies,
one may note in passing, in the richer stylistic resources at its
command. Cf. Kelkar 1967).
needs to be noted here that in working out etc style for himself an
individual may derive some of his effects by manipulating the stylistic
code or codes offered in the society.
Thus, if he were to use high style in a situation calling low
style, he will be being ‘genteel’ or if he were is the low style in
a situation carrying for high style, he will be being ‘coarse’.
But as soon as one thinks of literature (in the narrower
sense, as an art-form), one finds that, while one can hardly ignore
a consideration of style, the conception of linguistic style so far
presented falls short of the requirement.
Stylistics has to be seen as an extension of aesthetics, and
not just as an extension of grammar.
may be defined in the context of a work of art as the function (to
use a popular mathematical metaphor) that obtains between on the one
hand the work of art and the shared aesthetic culture of the community
of aesthetes and on the other hand the aesthetic quality that characterizes
an aesthetic event. At the back of this definition there is of
course the recognition that a work of art is a kind of aesthetic object. Indeed the concept of style is applicable not
only to works of art but also to other human artifacts that are at
the same time aesthetic objects.
‘ugly’, ‘sublime’, ‘ridiculous’, ‘charming’, ‘dainty’ are some typical
aesthetic adjectives. The
nature of the value judgment making use of these is distinct from
that of judgments using various other objectives as
‘true’, ‘false’, ‘right’, ‘wrong’, ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘sacred’, useful’,
lawful’, ‘invalid’, ‘unfair’, etc.
An aesthetic value of judgment of course goes beyond a mere
aesthetic gesture (‘beautiful !” or even some bodily equivalent) or
an aesthetic report (‘I found such and such beautiful’) : it invites
assent from fellow members of the community of aesthetes sharing an
aesthetic culture. (For a
fuller discussion of aesthetic qualities, see Kelkar 1969b). The schema for a stylistic statement may be
set down in some such fashion :
Given a certain aesthetic culture (e.g. that of the Marathi
language community) objects of the following sort (e.g. sound sequences
rich in retroflex consonants) tend to give rise to such and such aesthetic
quality (e.g. harshness).
In must be made clear that this is by no means a definition
of the aesthetic quality of harshness.
Indeed if someone found it necessary to count the retroflex
consonants before deciding that a given sound sequence is harsh, one
would discredit the genuineness of his aesthetic report – not to speak
of his very status as an aesthetic.
It is not necessary, indeed not likely, that the creator of
an aesthetic object is guided by any such stylistic rule-of-thumb.
Such explicit stylistic considerations may prove to be a distraction.
As aesthetic object that happens to be a man-made product may
be looked at from the point of view the maker and of the aesthete.
The two definitions of style will now be seen to represent
these two points of view. They
are not opposed but complementary. In relation to the aesthete style is the function
between the artifact, the aesthetic community, and the aesthetic quality
– respectively the input, the filter, and the output. In relation to the maker style is the characteristic
mode in which the maker reconciles the available resources with the
end in view. In relation to
a work of art such as a piece of literature, the two definitions become
one. The qualities of the work at the level of its
material of the work at the level of its medium constitutes the reason
of its being, the end in view. Style,
then, is the transformation of the material object (e.g. the linguistic
text) into the total work of art (e.g. the work of literature) (For a fuller discussion of the material and
the medium of literary art, see Kelkar 1969a)
will now be seen why linguistic style cannot exhaust style in literature. At best a consideration of the stylistics of
a language is merely a useful reminder that the literary artist’s
material is not a wholly passive affair : the language community has
already imprinted it with style.
It is up to the artist to exploit this common property or to
reshape it so as to receive a signature that is very own.
‘Popular’ latter : the ‘great’ writer does not permit the aesthetic
to worry as to which strategy is being employed.
To continue with the earlier crude paradigm of the harsh sound
sequences, the implications of all this for literary criticism can
thus be brought out :
“Ha ! a harsh sound sequence – an item on the debit side of the ledger.’ This is the native variety. (One must accept that there is a lot of the
in ancient Indian literary thought.)
‘Why is the author using the harsh sound sequences ? Are they appropriate
to the character in the story, to the mood of the whole?’
This is certainly an improvement over the proceeding. (To be honest, stopping at this level of sophistication
is not too unfair to the ordinary work of art).
Finally, rather than pass from the material of art to its medium,
one may encounter the total work of art and understand it before passing
from the medium to the material.
This is the critical idea.
(To be honest, when the material is dissolved in the medium,
expression and content have become one-as in a perfect work of art-such
a separate assessment is rendered needless. The two sided nature of style in language mentioned
earlier contributes to this unifying process.
The stylistics of a literary work may be seen either as reaching
down to its local effect or as reaching down to the contemplative
phase of the encounter, to the total effect.
The texture and the structure to give names to these two sides
of style – are simply two ends of a continuous hierarchy.
To overlook texture is to be oblivious that character, plot,
atmosphere, symbolism and the like have no existence outside the linguistic
fabric. To overlook structure is to be obvious that imagery, rhythm, figures
of speech, wit and the like have to be seen in the context of the
total work of art. Even the
judge in an obscenity case or a textual critic has to move back and
forth between texture and structure.
For the critic this is the very first lesson.
After all this discussion, it is easy to see (as Leech 1970
does) that “the task of style is co explain for the find the linguistic
correlate of) rather than to refute or liberals judgment:.
At the most, stylistics can serve “to sensitize areas of literary
response which are currently critical “blind spots”, by reason of
its ampler and more comprehensive Framework for understanding musicality
in veer the rationale of materials ‘rules’, or the form content distinction
in terms of surface/deep.
theory of literature – including the theory of style that goes with
it- can never replace literary criticism.
That making a census of the faults in a poem is naïve is, for
example, a critical insight. What
the literary theorist does is to place this insight in the context
of other insights and thus make better sense of it.
Many of the terms used by a literary critic are either stylistic
and thus concerned with some aspect of texture or structure-for example,
plot, symbol, image, prose, metaphor, rhythm-or with a stylistic component-for
example, tragedy, rasa, poem, social consciousness.
Cultivating clear thing about style and the analysis of style
in language is likely to help us in reducing the sloppiness that so
often besets the use of critical terms and classifications.
Rebellious slogans proposing to do away with these analytic
and classificatory terms is an understandable reaction against sloppiness,
but hardly a solution. More to the point is the tendency in contemporary
criticism of creating a newer and brighter terminology. Consider, for example, what Ann Ridler has
to say about Dylan Thomas’s use of language namely, that he uses words
in a way that makes us feel that he was present at the time of their
birth. This certainly captures what many of us have
felt in responding to the language of some poet or other-it does not
have to be Dylan Thomas. Now
someone has to make it his business to worry about what precisely
this expression means. If nobody is willing to show this sort of patience,
one has to reconcile oneself to the glib imitation of such terminological
So much for the language of criticism.
The twin tasks of literary criticism are interpretation and
criticism has to be distinguished from textual exegesis or annotation
which is the business of the literary scholar; i.e., the philologist
of literature. Exegesis tells
you what a piece of text means when that piece does not mean anything
to you or sets you right when your linguistic ignorance is at that
piece does mean something to you-but something that is obviously not
the whole story. Looking for a spiritual allegory behind an
erotic surface will do as an example of interpretative criticism,
but is by no means an example of interpretative criticism at its best. Whether we are doing exegesis with a philologist
or interpretation with a critic, we are always in danger of departing
from the original without realizing it. (Of course, consciously using the original as a point of departure
and creating or recreating something new is a different matter altogether). What helps us in avoiding this danger is a
firm grasp over language.
Textural exegesis is not the only service
that a philologist performs for the student of letters. Philology proper-as distinct from linguistics
and as inclusive of literary scholarship-is the study of letters as
letters, as linguistic artifact.
This study is text-centered but may be either centripetal or
centrifugal, the circumference being the linguistic and the socio-cultural
envelope of the text. Philology in proceeding from a thorough knowledge
of this envelope to a close study of the text undertakes the following
textual criticism or the reconstitution of the lost original from
its exemplars or from surviving translations (e.g. the original lost
Buddhist Canon in Old Magadhi from the surviving Pali rendering);
textual exegesis through annotation of lexical meaning, grammatical
construal, allusions, and the like and through content analysis2
of themes, motifs, ideas and the like;
Preparation of a concordance and a statistical study;
Study of the genesis of the text battling with problems of chronology,
authenticity, Judgments as the authenticity,3 of a text
can be supported by stylistic judgment which in turn can be supported
by statistical funding with or without computer-using refinements
Study of the transmission and dissemination of the text-thus tracing
its rising or failing fortunes or the interpolations and modifications
versa, in using the text as evidence for reconstructing the circumstances
in which it was produced, the scholar provides instruments to:
The biographical study of the maker-whether public or inward biography;
Linguistics study of the specific language variety and its space-time
Historical study as in dating a battle or an epidemic or the migration
of a group or in assessing contemporary reactions to such a historical
Social and cultural history including the history of ideas and the
history of the literary culture of a social group.
philologist is like an archaeologist-both examine and ‘restore’ the
material remains of the bygone age with the thoroughness and controlled
imagination of a detective or a paleontologist and restore as much
of that age as possible.4 There is an important difference,
however, between the material artifact and the text in relation to
the envelope which they both illumine by virtue of their very existence
and form and of their fit with the immediate context. The text, being a symbol, does something more
in that it also points allusively to events, objects, and conditions
in a way that a material artifact cannot (unless it is inscribed with
a text, as in the case of a coin, a seal, or a sheet of watermarked
paper). This requires long experience and an intimate
and specialized knowledge of the possibly relevant facts. Thus a textual critic accustomed to work with
old manuscripts will not be at home with printed texts with or without
surviving autographs. It is
obvious that philological activity-especially in its tasks (a), (b),
(c), and (g) – demands a consideration of language.
When a philologist studies literature, he has to have a feel
for literature, a grasp of the fundamentals.
A literary critic does not have to be literary scholar, though
he should not hesitate to take the latter’s help where necessary-for
example, in tackling literature in an ancient language-without making
the mistake of forgetting his own distinctive job.
It occurs to me that the Greek distinction between love of wisdom
(philosophia) and love of learning (philogia) probably corresponds
to the distinction we have just drawn between the perspective intrinsic
to the field and the scholarly perspective of letters as letters.
The technique of content analysis has been developed by Bernard Berelson
(1952 see also Pool 1959) in the context of social sciences. But philologists can very well claim it for their own province and
enrich it with their traditional skills.
Judgement’s as to the authenticity of a
text can be supported by stylistic judgement which in turn
can be supported by statistical funding with or without computer-using
refinements and concordeness.
There is an important difference, however, between the material artifact
and the text in relation to the envelope which they both illmine by
virtue of their very existence and form and of their fit with the
immediate context. The text, being a symbol, does something more
in that it also points allusively to events, objects, and conditions
in a way that a material artifact
cannot (unless it is inscribed
with a text, as in the case of a coin, a seal, or a sheet of watermarked
SOME NOTES OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
Bernard 1952. Content analysis
in communication research. Glenoe,
The Free press.
Ashok R 1967, Bhāṣece niyamana. Mahārāṣṭra-sāhitya
parikā no. 161 41-54, (In Marathi; The Regulation of language)
-1969a. The Being of a poem. Foundations of language 5, 17-33.
On aesthesis. Humanist review
no. 2, 211-28 Bombay : Modern Education Foundation.
Bhāṣā āj Sāhitya. Mahārāṣṭra-sāhitya
parikā no. 171-2, 18-28.
Ithel Desola (ed.) 1959. Trends
in content analysis. Urbana
III U of Illinois P.
Geoffrey 1970, The linguistic and the literary. Times Literary Supplement no. 3569: 305-6, July 23.
This is a slightly revised version of a paper presented
before the literary group of the center for Indian Writers, Poona
on 10 December 1969. It was
published in Indian Linguistics 31-3 : 1-11; July September
1970. For an earlier and longer version in Marathi
see Kelkar 1970.