“The hasanian framework for the study of ‘verbal art’ revisited… and reproposed”

Most of the latest developments in the field of linguistic stylistics demonstrate what Simpson (2004: 4) cautions us: that analysis in the field needs to be rigorous, retrievable and replicable. His counsel is of course simply another way of saying what Hasan (1985/1989; 2007) has been advocating for years: that an explicit model of language is required for producing any analysis that is worthwhile, one “that is maximally applicable to the genre [ie, to literature], irrespective of variations in time, sub-genre, and the critic’s response” (1985/89: 90). This paper demonstrates and defends the unduly ignored hasanian social semiotic theory and practice of stylistics, one in which the autonomous text, and its intricate context of creation, are the privileged constituents, rather than the individual author’s intentions or readers’ unrestrained responses. The primary difference between Hasan’s model and that of most others, excepting perhaps corpus-linguistic models, lies in its holistic, coherent and systematic nature, as well as in her view that literature is ‘different’, indeed ‘special’. Such a notion clearly goes against the grain of what many stylisticians have been saying for years: ie that literature is not special; that it is merely another ‘text type’ – needing no other tools than those the linguist brings to his/her treatment of any register. The advocacy of this belief is an understandable, even admirable, move on the part of stylistics practitioners to debunk the typical ‘lit crit’ ‘veneration’ of literature (Simpson 2004: 98-99). But to do this, I argue, one doesn’t have to hold that there is nothing particularly ‘special’ about literature. Hasan demystifies the ‘lit crit’ stance perfectly well and still upholds the special function of language in literature. How? Through ‘double-articulation’ (1985/89; 2007): a first level (the semiotic system of language), which describes the language in literature in the same way that one describes language use in any other text, the descriptive categories of the grammar, and the meanings assigned to those categories, being indeed always the same for any text, and a second level, the semiotic system of verbal art, which accounts for the manner in which the foregrounded patterns [i.e., not isolated instances] of language function to create verbal art (cf. Halliday’s de-automatization of grammar, 1982). As Hasan puts it, “The art of verbal art consists of the use of language in such a way that this second order semiosis becomes possible” ( 1985/89: 65). I will argue that the tricky task of the stylistician is to show how this is done, and also that double-articulation is the most satisfactory way to do it. Select references Goatly A. (2008) Explorations in Stylistics, London : Equinox. Halliday M.A.K, A. MacIntosh, P. Strevens (1964) The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching, London; Longman. - (1982) “The De-Automatization of Grammar: From Priestley’s ‘An Inspector Calls’, in J. Anderson (ed.), Language Form and Linguistic Variation, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 132-158. Hasan R. (1985; 1989) Linguistics, Language and Verbal Art, Geelong, Vic.,Australia: Deakin University Press; Oxford: OUP. - (2007) “Private pleasure, public discourse: reflections on engaging with literature”, in D.R. Miller & M. Turci (eds), Language and Verbal Art Revisted: Linguistic Approaches to the Study of Literature, London : Equinox, 41-67. Simpson P. (2004) Stylistics, London: Routledge Toolan M. (1996) Language in Literature, London: Arnold.