Language and Literature

original project In particular with interested non-experts in SFL in mind, the first section of the chapter will be dedicated to systematically but accessibly defining/describing what the SFL take on literature and the analysis of the language in literature consists in. Hasan’s expression ‘verbal art’ will be adopted and the definition provided will be hers, as will be the double-articulation descriptive and analytical model of verbal art also presented in the section (1985/1989; 2007). It will also immediately be emphasized that, in contrast to mainstream theoretical-methodological approaches to stylistics, the verbal art framework derives from the conviction that literature is a ‘special’ text type: “[…] language for its own sake: the only use of language, perhaps, where the aim is to use language.” (Halliday 1964: 245), and that, as a result, the framework for its analysis must be ‘special’ too. To ensure that readers are briefed in the ostensible strengths and relative weaknesses of diverse approaches, the framework and its rationale will be juxtaposed with Simpson (2014) as representative of those mainstream approaches to stylistics mentioned above. Section 2 will attempt to map out the central inspirations of the model. The Social Semiotic Stylistics perspective, as Hasan also calls it, is not ‘new’: “[…] it actually predates the 1960s’ structural stylistics” (Hasan 2007: 21). The initial approach to the perspective was made by the Russian Neo-Formalists and Prague Circle scholars, especially Mukařovský in his 1928 discussion of ‘foregrounding’ (1977, 1978). There will be no space for tracing a comprehensive history of the discipline of stylistics and its various ‘stages’ (but see, e.g., Introduction to Miller and Turci 2007), yet, while what is often dubbed ‘British’ stylistics was emerging and defining itself in these early years, Hasan – and also Halliday – were actively contributing to that definition. This section would reveal how. Attention will be drawn here to Halliday’s complementary role in the ‘history’ of the framework of verbal art with his like-minded theoretical and methodological stances on the linguistic study of literature and in well-known applications of these in analyses of various literary texts (cf. Lukin 2014). Section 3 will give a brief sample illustration of verbal art analysis in action, exemplifying the basic analytical steps by means of my own unpublished analysis of D. H. Lawrence’s ‘Lonely, Lonesome, Loney – O!’, a poem replete with linguistic mechanisms that can be shown to ‘mean’ in the ways the model foresees. Section 4 will take brief note of recent research within the framework, as well as to indicate possible directions for future work. The studies of many scholars would by rights be mentioned here: foremost among these being Butt, Lukin, Webster in particular on the Australian scene and, in Italy, Taylor Torsello and myself, but also Turci and Luporini. Special mention should also go to Manfredi and Pagano and Lukin for their work on the translation of verbal art. A brief pitch for slotting Jakobson into model, to which much of my recent work has been dedicated (e.g., Miller 2012, in press) will also be made, along with some considerations on the space that a CL approach to the analysis of verbal art can be seen to have – and not have (e.g., Miller and Luporini, in press). The final section will offer some parting thoughts. Select References (cited in abstract only) Halliday M.A.K, MacIntosh A., Strevens P. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longman. Hasan R. (1985 [1989]) Linguistics, Language and Verbal Art. Geelong, Vic., Australia: Deakin University Press; Oxford: OUP. Hasan R. 2007. ‘Private pleasure, public discourse: reflections on engaging with literature’, in D.R. Miller and M. Turci (eds), pp. 41-67. Lukin A. 2014. ‘A linguistics of style: Halliday on literature’, in J.J. Webster (ed.), The Bloomsbury Companion to M.A.K. Halliday. London and New York: Bloomsbury. Miller D.R. 2012. ‘Slotting Jakobson into the social semiotic approach to “verbal art”: A modest proposal’, in F. Dalziel, S. Gesuato, M.T. Musacchio (eds.), A Lifetime of English Studies: Essays in Honour of Carol Taylor Torsello. Padua: Il Poligrafo, pp. 215-26. Miller D.R. in press. ‘Jakobson’s place in Hasan’s Social Semiotic Stylistics: “pervasive parallelism” as symbolic articulation of theme’, in W. Boucher and J. Liang (eds), Society in Language, Language in Society: Essays in Honour of Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Miller D.R. and Turci M. (eds.) (2007) Language and Verbal Art Revisited: Linguistic Approaches to the Study of Literature, London: Equinox. Miller D.R and Luporini A. in press. ‘Social Semiotic Stylistics and the corpus: How do-able is an automated analysis of verbal art?’, in A. Duguid, A. Marchi, A. Partington & C. Taylor (eds.), Gentle Obsessions: Literature, Linguistics and Learning: In Honour of John Morley (in Alto 2, University of Siena), Roma: Artemide Edizioni. Mukařovský J. 1964. ‘Standard language and poetic language’, in P.L. Garvin (ed. and trans.), The Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure and Style. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Institute of Languages and Linguistics, pp. 17-30. Mukařovský J. 1977. The Word and Verbal Art: Selected Essays by Jan Mukarovsky. J. Burbank and P. Steiner (eds. and trans.). London: Yale University Press. Mukařovský J. 1978. Structure, Sign and Function: Selected Essays by Jan Mukarovsky, J. Burbank and P. Steiner (eds. and trans.). London: Yale University Press. Simpson P. 2014. Stylistics, 3rd edition. London: Routledge.