Chapter 5 Literature as Subject and discipline

Different between subject and discipline is that disciplines are derived from the subject like you’ve studied literary criticism, linguistics or literature. So here he discusses that how literature is to be taught as subject because we do teach in literature as subject not only in Pakistan but in English countries.

But here is no proper framework as such for teaching English literature; what he says that teachers more or less teach literature to the student as the same way as they were taught.

This stylistic that we’ve been discussing and we’ve know how important this stylistic is, and within stylistic how important the role of language is in understanding literature. Language aspect, linguistics aspect and the linguistic analysis it guides to towards the understanding of literature.

When you ignore the importance of language you just focus on critical aspect of literature then you’re deriving the students of literature of very important thing in order to understand literature language has to be given due importance because as we see language is very important and there is no well defined rules for teaching English literature that according to stylistics this is how you teach the literature, take your example how you’re taught literature teacher reading out the poem and teacher explaining the main points what a writer wants to convey may be telling you about rhyme scheme at the most but guiding to you towards message this is what poet is saying.

But what happens when you’re taught literature you’re taking the message that teacher is delivering to you not the poem that is delivering, a poem communicates as we’ve seen literature as communication; that communication is delivered through the medium of teacher to the students. so students are doing what they are not understanding literature themselves, not trying to understand the message in the poem making use of language and all, but they are the told what the message is and that is what they follow; if they are supposed to explain that poem they will produce what the teacher has told them this is what you student have been doing. Teacher tells you summary the main idea and you reproduce it in exams.

Widdowson doesn’t believe in this approach he says that there should be a proper system through which and proper techniques would be used so that students are properly guided how to interpret literature; instead of giving them readymade interpretation which they cram and reproduce and

teacher give them one or two interpretation and students apply them in all of literature.

He says that literature since we know language is patterns in literature that gives the beauty to literature whether prose or poetry and when you translate it or paraphrase it so that beauty is gone, “a summary of scientific paper retains the character of scientific statement, but a summary of novel or poem cannot to be literature.” students then are not getting that beauty of literature and cannot appreciate that because they cannot reach it. And this happens when language is not given importance for

dealing with literature. It is patterning of language and the point is what that patterning is when you understand that you can understand literature. So language cannot be separated but unfortunately this has been happening in teaching of literature.

“it might  For example if there is extract from Shakespeare’s play what teachers normally do they take help of

literature as discipline by looking for more work of Shakespeare; so, looking for an of literature within the realm of literature. Their teacher might have taught them in the same manner, so teaching literature by taking help from literature that means ignoring the linguistics and language. That is to say teaching

literature as subject focusing on literature as a discipline. Aim of teacher is to teach literature for the exams but not for the sake of understanding of literature. Different disciplines are taught in order to make students understand the subject. For instance TEFL students are taught; how to teach and different

techniques for teaching English language but in literature teacher are not being given formal training for the teaching of literature.

They are teacher of literature but they do not know the principles of teaching literature; that his is how literature should be taught properly. So teacher teach at their own the way they want. There is no general framework for teaching literature; like TEFL has guidelines followed by all around the world for teaching

English. Aims and needed and procedure to achieve those aim. For this he quotes like from F.R Leavis who is trying to define literature as a subject.

“the essential discipline of an English school in the literary critical; it is a true discipline, only in an English school if anywhere will it be fostered, and it is irreplaceable. It trains, in a way no other discipline can, intelligence and sensibility together, cultivating sensitiveness and precision of response and a delicate integrity of intelligence…”

So according to Leavis the aim of literature should be that it does all of these things. And these are the things which no other discipline can do. This should be aim of literature as a subject according to Leavis’ but Widdowson objects.

This chapter favors stylistic approach towards the study of literature. Widdowson objects about definition of literature by F.R Leavis and he gives his own suggestions about the concept of literature

and how it should be taught.

F.R. Leavis’ definition of literature as a subject given which indicates what author sees as the essential benefit deriving form study of literature and in particular from a study of English literature:

“the essential discipline of an English school in the literary critical; it is a true discipline, only in an English school if anywhere will it be fostered, and it is irreplaceable. It trains, in a way no other discipline can, intelligence and sensibility together, cultivating sensitiveness and precision of response and a delicate integrity of intelligence…”

OBJECTIONS RAISED BY WIDDOWSON AGAINT THE DEFINITION OF F.R LEAVIS

i) The aims of the discipline of literary criticism as given in the definition are of extremely

general and idealistic kind;

Leavis ascribes to literary study may not be achieved. But pedagogic aims have to be more limited and realistic and within scope of reasonable attainment. His ideas are more like philosophy of literary study as a discipline but it has no indication how one might define pedagogy of literary study as a subject.

ii) There are a number of other discipline which might justifiably claim to train people acquire precision of response, awareness of the significance of tradition and so on.

There is no logic to believe Leavis’ claim. Scholars whose allegiance is to other disciplines, like History, Sociology, and the different branches of the Physical Sciences, could all make the sort of claim that Leavis makes.

iii) No mention is made of language whereas the benefits that Leavis associates with literary studies can be realized if the student develops an awareness of the way language is used in literary discourse for the conveying unique messages.

Use of language has vital role in literary writing it differ from other disciplines for instance a summary of scientific paper retains the quality of scientific statement, but a summary of novel or poem cannot to be literature. Leavis’ ascribed effects can be achieved through other disciplines but those effects come about through a heightened awareness of the way language can be used to explore and express realities. Student hardly experience text by themselves so unless they meet text they can’t understand the real sense of literature.

iv) Leavis’ remarks are made with British universities in mind or at least with universities in English-speaking countries in mind and the remarks were made over thirty years ago.

Literary studies have not generally been defined as a subject in such a way as to develop such sensitivity, either in secondary school or in universities.

v) Rejecting the argument that English literature teaching fosters desirable qualities of mind, one is left with two other possible reasons for teaching it overseas:

1. Cultural reason: To acquaint students with ways of looking at the world which

characterize the cultures of the English-speaking people (English, Irish, Scotish, Welsh) The treatment of literature as a cultural subject reduces literature to the level of conventional statement about ordinary reality. It does not direct at the specifically literary nature of literature. Literature, in such case, is only treated as a source of factual information, such as, we might read conventional forms of discourse like a historical document, philosophical treaties, a sociological questionnaire.

2. Linguistics reason: To teach English literature as something written in English language (figure of speech, metaphor, expression, the expression of language and vocabulary.

WIDDOWSON’S SUGGESTION

In view of these difficulties, it would be better to define literary studies as a linguistic subject and define the term “literature” as “an enquiry into the way language is used to express a reality other than that expressed by conventional means”. This of course, amounts to the study of literary works as kinds of discourse.

 If one defines the subject in this way, the reason for teaching overseas becomes immediately apparent. Pupils and students are engaged in learning the English language; this involves in part of learning of the language system the structures and vocabulary of English but it must involve also the learning of how this system is used in the actual business of communication.

This being so, the manner in which the resources of the language system are used in the fashioning of unique literary messages can be compared with other uses of the language so as to make clear by contrast how the system is used in conventional forms of communication. At the same time, of course, a

comparison with other kinds of discourse will reveal what it is what is unusual to literary uses of English.

So the study of literature is primarily a study of language uses and such it is not a separate activity from language learning but an aspect of same activity.

Widdowson says that in most cases the individual can only respond to literature as a result of guidance.

One cannot just express to literary writing but normally what critics and teachers. So often do is to tell students what message are to be focused in the literary words. This discourages them to find their own interpretation as the full input of work can only be recognized by the individual direct experience of it. Widdowson says literature should be read linguistically and literally. If we disregard we do not understand the real sense of literature.

Let is now consider some of the basic pedagogic principles that follow from the kind of stylistic approach to literary study that has been outlined in this book.

Firstly, the study of literature is primarily a study of language use and as such it is not a separate activity from language learning but an aspect of the same activity.

Secondly, it follows that the study of literature is an overtly comparative one, since not otherwise can it be practiced as an aspect of language learning in a more general sense. This principle can be put into conventional use of language to demonstrate the difference in the way the language system is realized

for communicative purposes. The assumption is that this comparative procedure will develop in the leaner two kinds of ability. The first is the ability of recognize the manner in which the signification of linguistic elements is modified by context and thereby to acquire a strategy for ascertaining their value in actual use.

Since it is common to find considerable divergence between significance and value in literary discourse, must obviously in the use of metaphor, literature can be used to demonstrate the kind of reason progress which must operate in the understanding of any discourse. The argument is that understanding

literature and understanding other kinds of discourse involve the same correlating procedure of matching code and context meanings but in understanding literary discourse the procedure is made more overt and self-conscious.

CHAPTER-4 THE NATURE OF LITERARY COMMUNICATION

Although the deviations are common in literature but these are not defining features of literature. But literary language should be patterns into actual language system. Widdoson suggests that effect of patterning is to create acts of communication which are self-contained units, independent of social

context and expressive of reality other than that which is authorized by conventions. In other words, literature should not be deviant as text it must of its nature be deviant as discourse.

Literary communication takes place through literature or in other words message conveyed through literature. Literature is deviant and may not follow the rules of language and grammar the way nonliterary discourse does. Literature is organized to form pattern and those pattern communicate and

that is purpose of literature. Literature cannot be understood in isolation, in sentences or in phrases, but as whole, when you go through a poem you know the poet want to say.

 According to Widdoson literary communication is independent of social context, because in ordinary communication‘s demand is social context so its context dependent but unlike literary communication.

We communicate and literature communicates but difference is that our communication is context dependent and literary is not.

To understand this we’ve to first understand the process of communication in general. In communication we’ve sender who encodes message and there has to be a receiver to decode the message. Similarly, there are addresser and addressee, sender is addresser and receiver is addressee, who is being addressed, or in the written message writer becomes sender and readers become receiver. They are same in the common non-literary communication.

Grammatical sender and addresser is first person and receiver and addressee second person. E.g. I/We, and You and a third person who is being talked about she/he etc. But in literary communication it may not happen.

First Person in Literary communication: in literary communication sender and addresser are different and addressee and receiver are different. For instance poet writes a poem he is sending the message and the characters in the poem are the addresser so there is different between sender and addresser.

 E.g I’m the enemy you killed my friend : a dead person is addressing, according to code of language the third person is addressing, in the context of poem, being first person, so third person

is used as first person.

 I’m not yet born; o Hear me ; an un-born child speaks.

I come from haunts of coot and hern (reference to brook or stream is saying I come from).

I bring fresh showers for the thirsting flower (cloud addressing).

 These examples do not fulfill requirements eg. A dead person

speaking which does not happen in real world, a dead person can be talked of as third person, and other requirement of addresser is that he should be human. In these examples senders are poets Shelley, Owen, Tennyson and Mac Neice but the addressers are dead person, unborn child, stream and clouds; which in normal communication are being talked as third person.

 First person pronoun in these extracts then is not the conventional one but is somehow compounded with the third person to create a unique kind of reference.

Second person in literary discourse

Ye trees! Whose slender roots entine/ Altars that piety neglects…

 ( Wordsworth) and Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness…/Thou foster-child of silence and slow time. (Keats) With how sad steps, O moon, thou climbst the skies…( Sidney).

In these extracts addressees are inanimate objects incapable of receiving messages, therefore, third person entities. Poets commonly address non-human objects, flower, clouds etc; but they know it is human reader who receives their messages. It means addressee is different from receiver, addressee

is an object and receiver is human which is different from conventional use of second person pronoun and third person is used as second person. If the extracts are converted into common discourse then the value of the discourse is altered. He is not yet born. It comes from haunts of coots and

hern. The still unravish’d bride of quietness. The poet is no longer ‘saying the same thing’. We might express the difference for the moment by saying that the immediacy of experience is lost and the poet is detached from complete involvement.

Third person in literary discourse:

let us now consider how third person is used in literary communication, Fear took hold of him. Gripping tightly to the lamp, he reeled, and looked round.

The water was carrying his feet away, he was dizzy.......In his soul, he knew he would fall. (D.H Lawrence ‘The Rainbow’)

In this extract it is to be noticed that Lawrence is describing feelings of a

drowning man which is only felt by the person himself can feel. And this cannot be predicted for third person except in reported speech. What goes in mind can be only described by first person for instance In my soul, I know I would fall etc. but of course neither first person nor third person suits the situation because man is not presented as ghost speaking from his grave, but a drowning, which

can’t speak. In the extract we have effect of third person which takes value of both first and third person.

In literary discourse we do not have sender sending message to receiver directly, as in normal case. Instead we have a communication situation within a communication and a message whose meaning is self-contained and not dependent on who sends it and who receives it.

The literary message does not arise in the normal course of social activity as do other messages, it arises from no previous situation and requires no response, and it does not serve as a link between people or as a means of furthering the business of ordinary social life. We might represent the normal communication situation as follows:

I                        III                          II

Sender                                       Receiver

Addresser                                  Addressee

Literary communication:

                                 I/III                                 II/III

Sender               Addresser                          Addressee/Receiver

 Three objections might be raised against this characterization.

i) First, pronouns in English can refer to more than one person (I+III) “My wife has a train to catch so we must leave at once” or “Your train leave at 10 so we must leave at once”. ‘We’ may also include speaker and hearer (I+II). ‘You’ II+II , I+III, I+II multiple references when someone is not directly addressed.

Resolution:

 Answer to this objection is that singular pronouns which in the code can only have single reference but which in literary writing has what we might call compound references. This might formulate I/III, II/II, III/I.

ii) Second, that the way Widdowson has compounded pronouns, as first person pronoun in poetry refers to poet who is sender and addresser, does not follow that all literature makes use of pronouns in same way.

Resolution:

This objection can be answered that in literary writing even if first and second person pronouns do not refer to entities which cannot of their nature send and receive messages, they do even so depend for their value on the ending of the sender/addresser and receiver/addressee amalgams and on the addition of a third person feature.

The literary writer is well aware that artistic convention within which he works allows for this distinction between sender and addresser and so relieves him from any social responsibility for what he says in the first person. This is how literary writing differs from diaries and personal letters.

iii) Third, object that writer mostly does have social purpose of writing.

Resolution:

It can be answered that writer does not do so by addressing himself directly to those who consciences he wishes to stir.

Most literature provokes no social action whatever. Shelly spoke of poets as ‘the unknowledgeable legislator of the world’, but a legislator who is not acknowledged is not a legislator; poets do not make laws, although they make directly influence those that do. Literary discourse is independent of normal

interaction, has no links with any preceding discourse and anticipates no following activity either verbal or otherwise.

Reformulation of the Principles: (Literature combines what is separate in code)

A) UNCONVENTIONAL USE OF SENTENCE STRUCTURE 

 It is because a literary work is dissociated from other social interaction that the writer is required to work the language into patters: patters are designed sell f-contained and they are comparatively different from conventional

language code.

For instance in poem “Child On Top Of A Greenhouse”

“The billowing out the seat of my britches,

My Feet Crackling splinters of glass and dried putty,

The half-grown chrysanthemum starting up like accusers,

Up through the streaked glass flashing with sunlight,

A few white clouds all rushing eastward,

 A line of elms plunging and tossing like horses;

 Andeveryone pointing up and shouting.

The poem consists of a series of noun phrases or nominal groups. It deviance in grammatical terms is shown by the fact that it is a sentence which lacks the obligatory category of verb phrase. So this utterance is not an independent sentence because first base rule of generative is ‘SNP + VP’

but VP is missing in the above extract.

B) TIME/TENSE AND ASPECT SEPARATION

In ordinary communication tense and aspect are combined, without a tense aspect does not give sense, full meaning; for instance: “he going home” is not clear that he (is/was/will be) going home; but in literary discourse it is separated and it is interpretable. It is to be noted that this kind of utterance (“The billowing

out the seat of my britches”) does not occur independent but in an ongoing conversation. For instance,

A: ‘What do you feel’, B: ‘The wind billowing out the seat of my britches. We can say that primary B’s utterance consisting of ‘I’ and verb ‘feel’ ‘I feel the wind billowing’ but in the poem we’ve no linguistics background knowledge so we cannot relate NP to the poem.

The problem is that we don’t know what to understand from the preceding text of present or past, ‘the wind is billowing’ or ‘the wind was billowing’, poem has no specific time reference. We’ve aspect (ing) but not tense(is/was), in language code time and tense are interrelated one can’t have without

another; present continuous and present perfect tense, so including aspect as feature of general category tense. But in this poem what is normally inseparable becomes separated: we have aspect without tense.

The effect of isolating aspect here is to make a statement about an impression of ongoing movement which has no attachment to time. Boy at the top of house, apart from real time and aware only of a kind of timeless movement. Only progressive form is used which runs as theme through linguistics patterning of

the poem – billowing, crackling, staring, flashing, rushing, plunging, tossing, pointing, shouting.

The reality which the poem records, is that of subjective feeling. Individual thoughts, feelings and perceptions, the private person, and this reality cannot be described by society as whole, but through code of language it was drawn to create a pattern of its own kind.

C) HUMAN FEATURES TO –HUMAN ENTITIES

 Literary writing often follows strategy as; it combines what is kept separate in the code and separate what is combined in the code. For instance, a lexical item (wind) can combine the feature /-human which is part of signification with the

feature of /+human which context imposes upon it (winds stampeding the fields), and the entity refers to both human and non-human at the same time. And this is inseparable in the reality.

D) THE SEPARATION OF SENDER AND ADDRESSER, RECIEVER, ADDRESSEE.

In ordinary conversation sender and addresser are same and receiver and addressee are the same. In literary sender is poet and addresser is character in the poem so they differ from each other (I am the enemy you killed my friend) (Ewen).

In the poem the writer addresses objects in this way they become addressee but reader of the poem are human being so they are the receiver so addressee and receiver are different (Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness) (Keats).

E) PARADIGMATIC AND SYTANGMATIC RELATIONSHIP (Double Articulation or Double structure)

 Whereas syntagmatic analysis studies the 'surface structure' of a text, paradigmatic analysis seeks to identify the various paradigms (or pre-existing sets of signifiers) It is thought that phonological structure of language has no independent function but serve only to construct units of grammar. But in poetry patterns of sound do have a function other than that of constructing words: lexical items enter directly into the meaning through value which they do not own.

The murmurous haunt of flies on summer eves (keats)

The presence of the murmuring noise of flies on evenings of summer.

The second does not have the same value as the first; there is not the same degree of ‘convergence’ of double structure.

A linguistic unit, whether a ‘sound’ at the phonological level or a ‘word’ or ‘group of words’ at the grammatical level, enters into two kinds of relation: it is paradigmatically related to units which can occur in the same phonological or grammatical context, and syntagmatically related to units which it

actually does occur with and which constitute this phonological or grammatical context.

For instance: sound /p/ in pet, pat, pack are represented by –et, -at, and –ack in contexts; it is in syntagmatic relationship with these sounds. Sound /b/ in contexts to produce bet, bat, and back. /p/ and /b/, in the contexts –et, -at, -ack- and in result are in paradigmatic relationship with each other.

  

Paradigmatic describes substitution relationship for example in a sentence like ‘The plumber smiled’ NP (The Plumber) VP (smiled) each word can be exchanged with other words like My Aunt Charlotte/ An old man without changing syntagmatic relationship. Importance of paradigmatic relationship is that it

is one of criteria in the classification of words into various categories such as noun, verb, pronoun, etc. items which can substitute for (smiled) will be verbs. Similarly VP can be replaced Complained, Arrived etc, Mended the pipes, installed. We can set up class of transitive verbs which all are verbs

having not following NP as part of their grammatical environment, for instance some noun cannot occur with intransitive verbs like the plumber mended.

To make a correct sentence one selects an element from paradigmatic and combines with another. In the NP and VP we’ve choices; between proper noun and common noun, class of common nouns, animate and non-animate; and within VP we’ve transitive and intransitive verbs belongs to

different paradigms.

Horizontal plane are syntagmatically related and those on the vertical place are

paradigmatically related. For instance: The Nurse Teacher disappeared objected Arthur Harold Wilson shot ridiculed a man from the BBC The Archbishop of Canterbury

Thus the nurse and teacher are equal but not nurse and Harold. Again disappeared and objected are equivalent but they are not equivalent to shot and ridiculed but only to ‘shot a man from the BBC’ or

‘ridiculed the Archbishop of Canterbury’ since it is these verb phrases and not the verbs themselves which share the same column as the intransitive verb phrases.

Substitution table gives us vivid understanding of formation of sentence

 By selecting items from paradigmatic columns to combining them to form a new sentence, selection and combination can be said basic principle of linguistics organization. That is to say, a selection is made of a series of items from

the same column and equivalence is thereby transferred from vertical plane of selection to the horizontal plane of combination.

For instance: Eliot’s Four Quartets might be arranged in to a substitution table; Such tables yields a number of paradigmatic choices which can be made to form a complete sentences for example: ‘words, strain under the burden, words slip, words decay with imprecision, words will not stay still’. What

Eliot combines all choices so that the linguistic elements become equivalent in combination as well as in selection and paradigmatic; and syntagmatic relations were neutralized in this context.

 

A further example we can reduce some lines of Wordsworth which were previously discussed to the contents of a substitution table:

 If we move from left to right selecting from each column we can construct a whole series of different sentences:

I have felt a presence that disturbs me with the joy of elevated thoughts.

I have felt sense sublime of something that impels all objects of all thought.

I felt a spirit far more deeply interfused.

I have felt a motion whose dwelling is the round ocean.

I have felt a spirit that disturbs me with the joy of elevated thoughts.

Wordsworth uses syntactic and semantic equivalences which create the effect that poet trying to express the unspeakable; trying to capture a true experience.

By organizing Wordsworth’s lines into a substitution table we can show how paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations are combined to create a

literary discourse. By doing we point out linguistic feature of Wordsworth’s style; it underlines our  impression of its ‘sublimity’, its ‘grandeur’ and so on. The use of table can be helpful in teaching

literature.

Let’s now briefly review the converse: aspect of literary discourse which depends on dividing what is normally compounded. The most obvious instance of this, of course, is the separation of addresser from sender and addressee from receiver. It is to be noticed that this separation is suggestive of the

independence of literary discourse from the normal processes of social interaction and that it is because of this independence that internal patterns of language have to be designed within the discourse to carry meanings. These patterns are formed by reversing the normal principles of linguistic organization.

Thus, the dividing of what is combined leads to the combining of what is divided: the one is consequence of other. The isolation of aspect from tense is the result of removing the discourse from any contact with previous interaction, but the consequence of this is that the occurrence of the continuous form of the verb cannot itself be isolated in the context: it has to pattern in with others. The first line of the poem: The wind billowing out the seat of my britches…” make no sense on its own ( as it would if it were the reply of the question or if it were linked with previous discourse In any other way). It only

makes sense in association with the other lines of the poem, as part of code patterns prepares the way for the creation of patterns in context.

Separation of what is normally combined is, then, suggestive of the aloofness of literary discourse.

Other examples are provided by such opening lines as; “No, no, go not to Lethe, neither twist/ Wolf’s bane, tight-rooted, for its poisonous wine” (keats) and “yes, I remember Adlestrop” (Edward Thomas). These lines make o sense on their own. They only make sense in association with the rest of the poem which they appear; being cut off from one link they have to form others.

F) USE OF SPOKEN FORM IN LITERARY DISCOURSE:

“no, go not to Lethe, neither twist” (Keats) and “I remember Adlestrop” (Edward Thomas).

These quotations sound like spoken replies, one catches the cadence of the speaking voice; but at the same time lines are in medium of written form. Organization of first lines of poems suggests mode of communicating. The medium

used in literature is not like that of conventionally associated but it is more like of spoken.

For example: the patterning of sound and stress upon which poetic meanings so often depend are obviously intended to appeal to the ear, and in this respect poetry has character of communication in the spoken mode.

The medium is writing, but the mode of communication is not definitely spoken or written in the conventional sense but a blend of both. Literature also has blend of

both for instance; if we look at certain features of short stories, appears to be mode of communicating which has no analogue in conventional uses of language.

It is very common to find literary works beginning with a third person pronoun for which there is no previous reference. In normal circumstances, if one uses ‘he’ or ‘she’ it is anaphoric or deictic reference and refers to human; however this is not normally case in the literature for example: “she walks in

beauty like the night…(Byron), She was a phantom of delight… (Wordsworth).

 Here ‘she’ is not told about so here ‘she’ pronoun takes place of proper noun and it never happens in normal discourse. For instance in Fiction its often found “He came back into the kitchen. The man was still on the floor,

lying where he had hit him, and his face was bloody…” (Somerset Maugham :The Unconquerred).

And “ Soon they enter the Delta. The sensation was familiar to him” (William Faulker: Delta Autumn) and “it was an eighty-cow dairy and the troop of milkers, regular and supernumerary, were all at work. (Hard; The withered Arm).

Since there is no preceding discourse to which these sentences can relate, the above used pronouns have no references and reader takes it as it were, on trust. So the literary discourse and common discourse differs; whereas ordinary discourse pronoun derive their value retrospectively and in literary discourse pronoun take their value prospectively from what follows. It frequently happens that in literary discourse person pronouns are not anaphoric in function but operate as Homophoric or deictic as in the case of the lines from Byron and Wordsworth or Cataphoric in the case short story opening. Since “the man was  still on the floor” is a Cataphoric reference followed by article; in effect inclines us to interpret these

definite noun phrases deictically. The effect of use of phrase like ‘The man’ without any given information; draw the reader into the imagined situation and to provide an immediacy of reference by involving the reader as participant in the situation itself. The purpose of throwing the reference forward, of projecting the reader’s attention towards what is to come, is of course precisely to make us read on.

Here are some other examples of the dual functioning of definite reference: “The Picton boat was due to leave at half past eleven” (Katherin Mansfield: The voyage) – “There was two white men in charge of the trading situation” (H.G.Wells: In the Abyss).

Occurrence of aspect without tense and use of pronoun and definite noun phrases; which has no antecedent reference in the context; reflects the independence of literary discourse. In conventional discourse it is not generally necessary to provide details about the participants and the setting in terms of time and place. If the discourse is spoken most of these details appear within the actual situation. Whereas in literature sense of time and tense and social context is removed; and sender is no longer identified with addresser nor the receiver with the addressee.

The fact about participants and about setting in which they interact have to be included within the discourse itself. In consequence, its mode of communicating is

really neither spoken nor written in any straightforward way but a combination of both. It is for this reason that prose fiction is marked by frequent description of persons and settings: they represent the necessary situational context within which the action, include the verbal actions, of the participants can be understood; for instance: quote from Conrad’s “An Outpost of Progress” “There was

two white men in charge of the trading station, Kayerts, the chief, was short and fat; Carlier, the assistant, was tall, with a large head and a very broad trunk perched upon a long pair of thin legs” and about place ít was dead hour of November afternoon. Under the ceiling of level mud-coloured

cloud, the latest office buildings of the city stood out alarmingly like new tombstones among the mass of older building” (V.S Pritchett: The Fly in the Ointmen).

The account of person and settings is not, however, a straightforward one (as, indeed we might not expect it to be). As the situation is one which is removed from the reality of normal social life there is no need to keep the different situational factors distinct. Again see the combing principal at work. Thus, it is

common to find it instead of having persons, times and places described as separate aspect of situation they are interrelated as features of a kind of composite reality which we usually refer to as the ‘theme’.

Consider again following example, the opening of Lawrence’s story Fanny and Annie:

Flame-lurid his face as he turned among the throng of flame-lit and dark faces upon the platform.In the light of the furnace she aught sight of his drifting countenance, like a piece of floating fire. And the nostalgia, the doom of homecoming, when through her veins like a drug. His eternal face,

flame-lit now. The pulse and darkness of red fire from the furnace towers in the sky, lighting the desultory, industrial of crowd on the wayside station, lit him and went out...Ofcourse he did not see her. Flame-lit and unseeding!....”

Scene here, the darkness and the red light from the furnace is inextricably involved with the man’s appearance. This kind of description of person and setting which is

required in literary discourse has no exact analogue in other uses of language.

What literature communicates, then, is an individual awareness of a reality other than that which is given general social sanction but nevertheless related to it.

The basic problem in the teaching of literature is to develop in the student an awareness of the what/how of literary communication and this can be only be done by relating it to, without translating it into, normal uses of language. it is at this point that we can turn to pedagogic questions.