þ m o g u s
i r
þ o d i s
2 0 0 3
I I I
kalbotyra
Language, Literariness,
Pragmatics
Kalba, literatûriðkumas,
pragmatika
Izolda GENIENË
Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas
Studentø 39, 08106, Vilnius
Santrauka
Straipsnyje nagrinëjami kalbos, literatûros, literatûriðkumo ir pragmatikos santykio aspektai. Kodo analizës lygmenyje aptariami lingvistiniai ir stilistiniai literatûriðkumo parametrai tokie, kaip nukrypimas nuo kalbos normos, “nutolinimas”, iðkëlimas (foregrounding), metaforiðkumas. Ðie diskurso bruoþai sutinkami ir nemeniniuose tekstuose,
taèiau groþinë literatûra pasiþymi iðskirtiniu jø vartojimo tankiu ir daþnumu. Literatûroje nukrypimas
nuo kalbos normos pasireiðkia teksto ir konteksto
lygmenyse: 1) sisteminiø kalbos dësniø ribose (metaforiðkume ir leksiniø, sintaksiniø, fonologiniø ir
registro formø variacijose), ir 2) kodui nebûdin-
guose vartosenos atvejuose. Teksto literatûriðkumà
lemia tiek sisteminiø, tiek ir individualaus stiliaus
kalbos elementø sàveika ir pragmatika. Literatûrinë pragmatika pasireiðkia ne tik specifine meninio
teksto struktûra ir semantika, bet ir daugialypiø kontekstø komunikacine sàveika tiek tarp autoriaus,
teksto ir skaitytojo/gavëjo, tiek ir tarp paèiø veikëjø
teksto viduje.
Reikšminiai þodþiai: literatûra ir literatûriðkumas, literatûrinis, teksto lingvistiniai ir stilistiniai parametrai, nukrypimas nuo normos, nutolinimas, iðkëlimas, daugiaprasmiðkumas, kûrinio tekstas, kontekstas ir literatûrinë pragmatika.
Linguists and literary theorists have sought to
demonstrate a distinction between so-called literary and non-literary writing (texts) since the 192030s (the works of formalists, functionalists, American New Critics, structuralists, postmodernists, and
poststructuralists).
The postmodernist and poststructuralist rejection of the canon – the classical, “recognized” and
elitest literature - has lead to re/evaluation of the
former concepts and definitions of literature,
literariness and the literary. Interestingly enough,
within this controversial debate, it is the imaginative literature –prose, poetry and drama – which
has provoked the special interest of linguistic and
literary researchers. The present paper attempt’s:
1) to discuss different linguistic and stylistic conceptions concerning the nature of literariness, and
2) to define the textual and contextual features of
the literariness of a literary work in terms of pragmatics.
Modern stylisticians and literary researchers refer to the concept of literariness in relation to ontology, nature, functions and meaning of literature. The
term literature is historically variable and has undergone conceptual changes in its use as a descriptive
term and a category. In the late fourteenth century
and for the next few centuries it simply meant ‘acquaintance with books’ and ‘book learning’. The gen-
eralized sense of “anything written on the subject”
has persisted up to the present day. It is only since the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries that
the term literature has narrowed in meaning to its
dominant current sense of creative writing of a specifically aesthetic kind. From this new and narrow
point of view, all writing that was determined to be
factual and historical was implicitly stigmatized as
ISNN 1392-8600
I. RAISING THE PROBLEM OF LITERARINESS IN LITERATURE: AN
INTRODUCTION
3
Language, Literariness, Pragmatics
Kalba, literatûriðkumas, pragmatika
less creative and imaginative and non-literary.
The notion of literature and its institutionalized
academic meaning is usually signified by such collocations as literary text/discourse, literary writing, literary work, imaginative literature, belles letters.
The notion of literariness was developed in the
works of early Russian Formalists. In 1921,
Jakobson made the following statement: “The subject of literary science is not literature but literariness,
i.e. that which makes a given work a literary work”
(Hawthorn, 1998:184). The aim of specifying the
notions imaginative literature and literariness has
been on the agenda of literary investigations since
the end of the twentieth century.
The introductory part of the given article present
opinions of different scholars on the concept of
literariness and proposes areas in which the nature of
this phenomenon might be productive to investigate.
Some scholars associate literariness with a special kind of literary discourse. Thus T. Todorov
(1981) discusses literariness in terms of poetics and
establishes a link between interpretation and science in the field of literary studies. He sees
literariness as the properties of literary discourse:
“It is not the literary work itself that is the object of
poetics: what poetics questions are the properties
of that particular discourse that is literary discourse.
This science is no longer concerned with actual literature, but with a possible literature, in other words
with that abstract property that constitutes the singularity of the literary phenomenon – literariness”.
(M. Newton, 1997:87)
Discussing literariness, C. J. Brumfit and
R. A. Carter give a different treatment of the rela-
tions between literary and literariness. “We have to
re-examine our own presuppositions about the literary language and the nature of literature itself”
(1996:10). “In fact, we have come to believe that it
may be more productive to talk about language and
literariness rather than ‘literary language” (Carter
and Nash 1983). Researchers focusing specially on
the language of literature say that it is not only an
instrument of cognition but an object of pleasure
per se. Other theoreticians speak of the effect of the
message (M. Riffaterre, 1964:316). I. R. Galperin,
for example, distinguishes it as a separate functional
style which performs the aesthetico-cognitive function (1981:150). H. Widdowson proposes two ways
to analyse literature: as text and as discourse. The
scholar also offers new criteria for the problem of
literariness by stating that there is a difference in
reading and making sense of a literary discourse:
“The amount of information we normally take out
of something we read is minimal, actually, because
we simply take from the passage what fits the frame
of reference we have already established before reading. Now you can’t do that with literature… because
you’ve got to find the evidence, as it were, which is
representative of some new reality. So with literary
discourse the actual procedures for making sense
are much more in evidence. You’ve got to employ
interpreative procedures in a way which isn’t required of you in the normal reading process”
(1983:30). R. Fowler directs the study of linguistic
structures in literature to the realm of pragmatics –
the users and the uses of language (1996:6-7).
We will start with the analysis of linguistic and
stylistic structures characteristic of literary texts.
The first contact with a literary work is primarily
familiarization with the linguistic and stylistic matter,
which represents a part of the whole and starts at the
textual level (V. Daujotytë, 1998:134). Formalists were
concerned with the theoretical systematic examination of the textual differences between poetic and nonpoetic language, placing emphasis on verse not as a
means whereby language can transcend the ordinary
world, but as a verbal practice which reinvigorates
attention to the language itself, and to the way in which
language constitutes that ordinary world as part of our
experience. It was, in a way, a revival of the Aristotelian idea of the relationship between content and form.
This thinking found its expression in the theory of
defamiliarization (‘ostranenie’ – ‘making strange’) developed by the Russian theoretician Shklovsky (1917).
4
He understood defamiliarization as the dehabitualized
perception of ordinary language in literature. The key
to defamiliarization is the literary device, which impedes perception, draws attention to the artifice of the
text and dehabituates automatized perception. Some
scholars use the terms defamiliarization and
foregrounding as synonyms and treat them mainly as a
textual impact.
In modern linguistic and literary investigations,
foregrounding has become the central concept in
functional poetic theory (J. Esser, 1993:36). In 1932,
Mukarþovsky published his article “Standard Language and Poetic Language” in which he stated:
“The function of poetic language consists in the
maximum of foregrounding of the utterance […]. In
poetic language foregrounding achieves maximum
Izolda GENIENË
II. FOREGROUNDING AND DEVIATION
þ m o g u s
i r
þ o d i s
2 0 0 3
I I I
intensity to the extent of pushing communication
into the background as the objective of expression
of being used for its own sake.” (1996:14). R. Fowler
states that foregrounding is often signalled by repetition and parallel constructions (1996:9). Thus
signs become palpable, while the objects they designate are backgrounded into subordinate importance.
M. Vinogradovas, speaking of foregrounding,
gives special attention to foregrounding (1997:4465) and distinguishes first order foregrounding concerning micro-elements in a text: morphemes, words
(the syntagmatic level), and second-order
foregrounding (the paradigmatic level) concerning
(the hierarchy of complementary relations connected with the developing ideas. The phenomenon
of foregrounding represents a unity of contextual
principles, textual language means and their functions. (Genienë 1996:16-17)
Many theoreticians (Mukarþovsky among them)
identify foregrounding with deviation as a feature of
poetic language. Deviations from the norm do not
only create “hindrances” while reading the text, but
also signal the author’s/speaker’s intensification of
the thought and the foregrounding of the expressed
idea.
Deviant foregrounded language elements may
represent various categories of deviation: a) grammatical (morphological/syntactical), b) phonological c) mixing of register and d) lexico-semantic. As
often as not, several kinds of deviation or all of them
occur simultaneously at the syntagmatic or paradigmatic level.
Deviations can be code-regular and code-irregular. Code-regular deviations present less difficulty
in decoding. Being occasional cases rather than regular disruptions of rules in the language system, coderegular deviations still are “programmed” as latent
possibilities in the code (for example, a variety of
stylistic inversions and other figures of speech).
Code-irregular violations are more unusual, “unprogrammed” and foregrounded deviations which
ignore the system’s regularities and require greater
effort to decode or interpret (e.g. the ‘stream of consciousness’ technique in J.Joyce’s writing). We will
analyse both types of deviation in the works of poetry and prose.
The grammar of poetry very often resorts to deviant structures.
a) Grammatical deviation. The “ungrammaticalness” of grammar may have a code-regular tradition as, for example, the inversions in perfect tense
forms: “Much have I travelled in the realms of gold,/
And many goodly states and kingdoms seen...”
(John Keats On First Looking into
Chapman’s Homer)
At the textual level code-irregular deviations are
estranged from the system of language and pose the
reader a difficult pragmatic task of decoding. To
code-irregular deviation belong, for example, cases
of recategorization, jumbled word order, unusual
collocability, etc. For example, some extreme cases
are observed in the verses by E.E.Cummings:
“someones married their everyones/laughed their
cryings and did their dance/(sleep wake hope and
then) they/said their nevers, they slept their dream”
(anyone lived in a pretty how town)
These lines are based on code “violations” of
recategorization which, at first glance, seem linguistic anomalies. But, as H.Widdowson says, the poem
is able “to postulate certain rules which apply consistently within the text of the poem itself” (1975:30).
In the quoted verse we observe unusual cases of
recategorization: nominalization of pronouns, gerund and adverb (someones, their everyones; their
cryings, their nevers), which together with the metaphor “did their dance” stand for the regular everyday activity (cf.“sleep wake hope and then”). The
deviant grammar is used together with unusual lexical collocability and demands a specific way of reading. The significance and interpretation of the verse
remains open-ended. It could be explained by the
features of modernist experimental writing of the
1920-30s marked by social movements, which in
poetry expressed a crisis in the empire of signs as
postulated by Sartre, (see: Columbia Literary History
of the United States, 1988:743). Or it could also be
fleeing from standardization, or simply fascination
with innovation. Whatever the case, a code-irregular,
deviation means not only violation but also extends
the possibility of creativity in the expression of content. The phenomenon of deviation itself has raised
many debates since Coleridge and Poe.
The poem, unlike any other assembly of words,
“supplements the use of grammar and syntax with
another system of organization, the poetic line”
(Bradford, 1997:11). Thus poetry has its own grammar and establishes a system which is often observed
as recategorization. The English language, with a
grammatical structure that is basically analytical,
can easily tolerate recategorization. Interestingly,
the Lithuanian language, which is synthetic, also
allows experimentation. Here are several lines from
Justinas Marcinkevièius’ poem (Kalbos Namai)
“The House of Language”: “Daiktavardþiø stogas,/
veiksmaþodþiø durys,/ bûdvardþiø langai//...” (Engl.
ISNN 1392-8600
kalbotyra
5
Language, Literariness, Pragmatics
trans.: The roof of nouns,/ the doors of verbs,/ the
windows of adjectives/…) , where recategorization
concerns the area of semantics, where the perception
of the world blurs the signification of parts of speech:
stogas (the roof) means firmness (the noun), durys
(the door) indicates movement and opening, langas
(the window) acquires the adjective function showing what the world is like (Cf. Valentas, 1997:95).
Foregrounding and deviation in literature go
hand-in-hand with ambiguity. Ambiguity, which is
a language universal, is of particular interest to linguists and it results from the fact that there is not
always one-to-one correspondence between expressions and meanings. H. Widdowson maintains that
meaning in literature, especially in poetry, has no
fixity, and no definitive interpretation (1992:24).
In poetry, the impossibility of perfect equivalence
between the signifier and the signified, the form and
meaning creates ambiguity. Ambiguity is intrinsic to
any use of language, however, in literature it reaches
its hights, because “it is held in precarious poise
within the pattern of verse, and it cannot be transported into other terms”. All poems, and indeed all
forms of art, contain within their very design the potential for multiple significance” (ibid.: 24).
b) Lexico-semantic deviation. The metaphorical
and metonymical uses of language present coderegular deviations which are characteristic not only
of literature, but also of the mind’s characteristic
workings: we tend to use and create metaphors or
metonymy in our everyday speech, e.g.: “What a
hunk!” (“What a handsom well-built man!”) or:
“Who is the suit?” (“Who is the conformist bureaucrat?”). However, it is only the creative metaphor
that can mark literariness (as in Byron’s the above
quoted metonymy “those in purple raiment” which
signifies royalty.
c) Deviations in phonology. Breaks in the metrical
framework of poetry (rhyme, rhythm) have been observed in poems written since the sixteenth century.
Shakespeare resorted to a mixture of meters in his
sonnets as well. Here are a few lines from Sonet 90’:
“Then háte | Me whén | thou wílt |; if éver |,
nów ||
` || the` woHld | is bént | My néeds |
Nów || while
`to cHoss |,
The iambic pentameter is broken at the end of
the first and at the beginning of the second lines to
intensify the meaning of the utterance.
The majority of modern works are written in free
verse.
d) Register deviation. This phenomenon has often been observed since early modern English lit-
6
erature (in Donne, Swift, etc.). Byron used it as a
powerful tool in his ottava rima stanza with wit and
satyrical thrust, as in the following lines from Don
Juan: “Alas, how deeply painful is all payment!/ Take
lives, take wives, take aught except men’s purses./As
Machiavel shows those in purple raiment,/Such is
the shortest way to general curses.” (Canto X,
LXXIX).
Textual investigations have proved that literary
texts differ from non-literary by the greater quantity
and choice of lexical cohesive devises: synonymy,
hyponomy, complex and simple repetition
(Buitkienë, 2001:39).
Literature is also characteristic of density and
repetition of syntactical cohesive elements, as for
example, in Longfellow’s The Song of Hiawatha:
“Should you ask me whence these stories?/ Whence
these legends and traditions,/ With the odour of the
forests/ With the dew and damp of meadows,/ With
the curling smoke of wigwams,/ With the rustling of
great rivers,/ With their frequent repetitions…”.
In prose, metaphoricity, ambiguity, foregrounding,
deviation from the norm also play a central role.
Metaphor or metonymy can intensify an utterance
even in a narrow context (a sentence, a paragraph),
as in the following example from E.A.Poe: “And
again I sunk in the visions of Ligeia – and again,
(what marvel that I shudder while I write?) again
there reached my ears a low sob from region of the
ebony bed” (Ligeia: 90). The repetition of the adverb again, which in the last clause is written by the
author in italics, enhances the suspense experienced
by the narrator.
The above-presented examples of code-regular
deviations reflect objectively existing structural and
semantic patterns in language as a system. They can
be decoded in the narrower or wider linguistic context involving an active reader’s participation and
dialogue with the text which belongs to the area of
literary pragmatics.
In both poetry and prose the above-mentioned
language structures do not constitute literariness
per se but may be symptomatic of a higher incidence and density of linguistic features which are
tightly patterned in the text to create a new meaning. H. Widdowson explains why, eventually, even
the most flagrant cases of deviation and
“ungrammaticalness” lend themselves to interpretation (1975:30-31). The reason is that the textual
features which are irregular with the code become
regular in the context as “value”. A work of literature is a self-contained whole and it is this wholeness that helps build a new meaning.
Izolda GENIENË
Kalba, literatûriðkumas, pragmatika
þ m o g u s
i r
þ o d i s
2 0 0 3
I I I
kalbotyra
The contextual approach to literariness is multidimensional and goes beyond textual considerations. While postulating close reading, syntagmatic
and paradigmatic strategies of analysis and absorbing the literariness of the texture, we cannot ignore
the reader who has to understand, experience, analyze, and interpret the text according to his/her perceptive background, inclinations and abilities. This
takes reading into the sphere of pragmatics. G. Yule
defines pragmatics in the following way: “Pragmatics is concerned with meaning as communicated by
the speaker (or writer) and interpreted by the listener (or reader)… It requires consideration of how
speakers organize what they want to say in accordance with who they are talking to, where, when and
under what ciclumstances. Pragmatics is the study
of contextual meaning… Pragmatics is the study of
how is more communicated than said” (1993:3).
Literary pragmatics places a particular stress on the
latter statement.
A collection of essays edited by Roger Sell and
entitled Literary Pragmatics contains a number of
attempts to transpose some of the more general principles of pragmatics to a literary context. Central to
such a project is a commitment to moving away
from the study of literary works as closed or purely
formal structures of text to recognizing them as mediating elements in chains of communication. “Literary pragmatics postulates that no definition of
general communication is possible without literature and its contextualization and without knowing
how it uses common recourses of communication”
(Sell, 1991; in: Hawthorn, 1998:182).
While “grammaticality” refers to the surface
form of the utterance, the speech act approach indicates that meanings may be manifested both at the
surface level or implied. To understand the pragmatic features of literature it is plausible to mention the pragmatic properties of written discourse
as opposed to direct face-to–face communication.
(Traugott and Pratt: 247 – 263).
1.Writing has limitations because it excludes
paralinguistic (gestures, facial expression) and
prosodic devices (stress, pitch). 2.Many written messages are addressed to a broad public audience or
an intended group of readers, and the writer/speaker
does not control communicative relationship or the
reader’s/receiver’s reaction. The reader is not known
to the writer and their relationship is depersonalized and abstract. 3.Written discourse lacks sponta-
neousness; it is produced over a longer time span
and is subject to reflection, correction and revising.
4.Written language can be characterized by a conscious selection and a choice of suitable language
items. The writer is more responsible than the
speaker for his words, as a written work is fixed and
tangible.
The pragmatics of written works is conditioned
by a plurality of contexts – economic, cultural, political and the personal world of the writer/sender
and the reader/receiver.
The context of publishing has to be taken into
account as well. (Traugott and Pratt, ibid: 261;
Bergez et al.; 26). Edited manuscripts are subjected
to revising. The selection process ensures the trust
of the readers and their suspicion or bias concerning the political and cultural context, and competence of the publishers.
In a literary work the communicative goals are
hindered by multi-stage contextual constraints.
Some linguists maintain that appropriateness conditions are suspended because the connection between the language of literature and the real world
are severed and utterances “do not do” anything at
all (Traugott and Pratt: 256).
The channel of literary communication experiences multi-stage contextual constraints. Literary
pragmatics works at two levels - contextual and textual. The context of literary pragmatics manifests
itself in the complicated chain of production and
reception process: the real author – the implied
author – the narrator – the narrattee – the implied
reader – the real readers.
For example, the pragmatic “puzzle” may concern the author-and-the narrator relationship. Thus
in Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald, choosing the 1st
person narrative, delegates it to the narrator of the
novel – Nick Carraway. In this way two pragmatic
fictional paradoxical effects are achieved: the narration seems to be more personal, but the author
avoids direct responsibility for the judgement about
the main character – Gatsby. Nick Carraway says:
In my younger and more vulnerable years my
father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since.
“Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,” he
told me, “just remember that all the people in
this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve
had.”
He didn’t say any more, but we’ve always been
ISNN 1392-8600
III. TEXTUAL AND CONTEXTUAL FEATURES OF LITERARY
PRAGMATICS
7
Language, Literariness, Pragmatics
Kalba, literatûriðkumas, pragmatika
unusually communicative in a reserved way, and
I understood that he meant a great deal more
than that. In consequence, I’m inclined to reserve all judgements, a habit that has opened up
many curious natures to me and also made me
the victim of not a few veteran bores. (Chapter I)
It would be hardly possible, however, to say that
the author (Scott Fitzgerald) should be unambiguously identified with the narrator – Nick Carraway.
The novel creates its own microcosm and all the
agents, including the narrator, are participants of
the world of fictiveness which governs the behaviour
of the characters and the lines of the plot.
Apart from the author–narrator-character relationship, there are many other points characteristic
of literary discourse such as compositional structure, diversity of openings (for example, beginning
in medias res.) the chosen method of narration, the
variability of the narrative discourse and other issues which are waiting for the researchers’ attention.
It is important to compare the application of
speech act theory to literary analysis in achieving
significance. The conventions underlying successful conversation, which constitute the cooperative
principle, seem to be successfully applicable to literature). Statements not immediately interpretable
as relevant can be seen to have a particular
implicature or implication. The latter statement
seems to be of great potential use in the literary
analysis and criticism. The core of literariness is
very often grounded on ambiguity, inference, reading “between the lines”. A literary work is full of
tension and is based on ambiguous and fluctuating
meanings. Compare the following dialogue in O.
Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray between
Dorian and Lord Henry where the breaking of ideal
felicity conditions creates the point of ambiguity:
“It was almost nine o’clock before he reached
the club, where he (Dorian Gray) found Lord Henry
sitting alone, in the morning-room, looking very
much bored.
“I am so sorry, Harry, he cried, “but it is entirely
your fault. That book you sent me so fascinated
me that I forgot how the time was going.”
“Yes: I thought you would like it, “replied his
host, rising from his chair.”
“I didn’t say I liked it, Harry. I said it fascinated
me. There is a great difference.”
:Ah, you have discovered that? murmured Lord
Henry. And they passed into the dining room.
(Chapter X).
The literary effect is achieved by playing on the
polysemy of the verb to fascinate meaning: 1) to
hold interest and attraction, and 2) to bewitch: to
transfer and hold spellbaund be by irresistible power
<believed that the serpent could> (Webster’s New
Collegiate Dictionary, 1975).
“Disambiguation” of the statement is reached by
the maxim of manner in which the two characters
establish a cooperative communication guided by
commonly shared ideas based on mystical and decadent ways of thinking.
Speaking of the use of the term “literariness”,
another literary scholar, Peter Widdowson, introduces the notion of “the literary”. The term literary
does not identify a special literary language which
exists within the text (as the formalists try to prove);
it is rather a recognition of a shifting web of socially
produced relations, judgements, distinctions and
consequences open to change and cultural variation (P. Widdowson: 1992). Thus it is not only the
textual discourse that constitutes the literariness of
a work but also contextual constrains created by
literary pragmatics which establishes cooperation
between the speaker and the receiver (reader).
The phenomenon of literariness in a literary
work is based on textual and contextual linguistic
and stylistic features. They manifest themselves in
foregrounding, metaphoricity and deviation from
the literary norm. These textual features are observed in non-literary texts as well, but in literature they are characterized by higher frequency
and density of use. Deviation from the norm covers code-regular and irregular properties. Coderegular deviations intensify the utterance, bring-
8
ing it to the reader’s attention. Code-regular deviations can be decoded in a narrow context (a sentence, a paragraph). Code-irregular deviations are
disambiguated in a wider literary and
extralinguistic context. Literary pragmatics is based
on the dual nature of contextual constrains: 1. fictional communication between fictional characters and fictional situations, and 2. the established
pragmatic relationship between the speaker, the
text and the reader in a plurality of contexts.
Izolda GENIENË
CONCLUSIONS
þ m o g u s
i r
þ o d i s
2 0 0 3
I I I
kalbotyra
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ary Structure and Style. Washington D.C.,
Georgtown University Press, 1964.
13. Newton K.M. Twentieth Century Literary
Theory. New York, St.Martin’s Press, 1998.
14. Riffaterre, M. Criteria for Style Analysis.
Novoje zarubeþnoj lingvistike. Moscow, 1980.
15. Shklovsky, V. Art as Technique. Russian Formalist Criticism. Four Essays. University of
Nebraska Press, 1965.
16. Todorov, T. Introduction to Poetics. Trans. R.
H. Brighton, 1981.
17. Traugott, E. C., Pratt, M. L. Linguistics For Students of Literature. San Diego, New York,
Chicago, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publ.,
1986.
18. Valentas, S. Poezija ir kalba. Šiauliai, 1991.
19. Vinogradovas, M. Fictiveness of Poetic Texts.
Kaunas, 1997.
20. Widdowson, H. Stylistics and the Teaching of
Literature. London, Longman, 1975.
21. Widdowson, H. Talking Shop: literature and
ELT. ELT Journal 37/1, 1983.
22. Widdowson, H. Practical Stylistics: An Approach toPoetry. Oxford University Press.
Routhledge, 1999.
23. Widdowson, P. Literature. Routhledge, 1999.
24. Yule, G. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press,
1997.
ISNN 1392-8600
1. Bergez D ir kt. Literatûros analizës kritiniø
metodø pagrindas. Vilnius, Baltos
lankos,1998.
2. Bradford, R. Stylistics. Routhledge, 1997.
3. Brumfit, C. Carter R. A. Literature and Language
Teaching. Oxford University Press, 1996.
4. Buitkienë, J. Variation of Cohesive Devices in
Different Registers. Þmogus ir þodis. Vilnius,
Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas. Mokslo
darbai, Volume 3, 2001.
5. Carter, R. A. and Nash W. Language and
Literariness. Prose studies, 6/2, 1983.
6. Dyakonova, N. Three Centures of English Poetry. Moscow, 1980.
7. Fowler, A. Kinds of Literature. Oxford, New York,
1997.
8. Fowler, R. Linguistic Criticism. Oxford, New
York, Oxford University Press, 1996.
9. Galperin, I.R. Tekst kak objekt lingvisticeskovo
issledovanija. Moskva, 1981.
10. Genienë, I. Interpretation of the Foregrounded
Signals in Fiction. Literature and Cultural
Studies SIG, IATEFL. Cambridge, 1996.
11. Hawthorn, J. Moderniosios literatûros teorijos
þinynas. Vilnius, 1998.
12. Mukarþovsky, J. Standard and Poetic Language.
A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Liter-
9