The Notion of Literature

Author(s): Tzvetan Todorov, Lynn Moss and Bruno Braunrot

Source: New Literary History, Vol. 38, No. 1, What Is Literature Now? (Winter, 2007), pp. 1-12
Published by: Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20057986
Accessed: 05-10-2015 09:24 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New Literary History.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The

Notion

of Literature

Tzvetan

into

launching

Before

let us

literature,

not

Todorov

awesome

the
as a

begin,

of

question
measure,

precautionary

nature

the
by

of

examining

rather the kind of discourse which,

like
this very study, takes literature as its object. The difference will be one of
the course
rather than of objective; but who can say whether
approach
of the inquiry is not of greater interest than its final results?
first cast a doubt

We must

neither

literature;

itself but

literature

the mere

the legitimacy

upon

existence

of

the

term,

of

of the very notion

nor

the

fact

that

a whole

system is based upon it, can of itself justify its acceptance.

university
The first grounds for doubt are of an empirical nature. No complete
in all languages and throughout
history of the word and its equivalents,
time, has yet been undertaken;
yet even a superficial
inquiry into the
question
us.
In

suffices
the

to convince

European

us

that
the

languages

the
word

term

has

not

literature,

in

always
its present

been

with
usage,

is quite recent: it barely

it be that we are dealing

dates back to the nineteenth

century. Could
with an historical
and not at all an "eternal"
Moreover, many languages
(those of Africa, for example)
phenomenon?
term to designate
still have no generic
literature as a whole; and while
this absence by the so-called
L?vy-Bruhl would have sought to explain
primitive nature of these languages allegedly
incapable of abstraction
and hence devoid of any words designating
the general
rather than
the specific,
the time when we could accept such an explanation
has
the diversification
long passed. Finally, we must also take into account
of literature in our own countries; who would dare decide
today what
is literature and what is not, given the irreducible
diversity of all the
written works which, from infinitely different
tend to be
perspectives,
as
literature?
regarded
is not decisive: a notion may be legitimate even though
This argument
no
word may as yet exist to designate
it; it does, however,
corresponding
create
Nor
* This

a first

element

is a theoretical
essay was

of doubt
examination

originally

published

as
of

to

the

the

in "What

"natural"

problem

character
more

Is Literature?"

of

reassuring.
New

literature.
Whence

Literary History

5, no.

1 (1973).
New Literary History, 2007, 38: 1-12

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2
do

NEW

we

From

the

derive

experience:
in certain
them

find
crop

up

that

certainty
we meet

constantly

an

entity
works

literary

as

in

school,

history

literature

exists?
really
we
in
college;
authors"
"literary
an
called
entity

then
to

references

stores;

specialized
in our
everyday

such

literary

conversations.

That

on an intersubjective
"literature" does function
and social level seems
But
indeed unquestionable.
what
does
this prove? That in a
Agreed.
system?a

larger

ment

society,

a civilization?there

to as literature.

referred

an

exists

it prove that all the individual

partake of a common nature which

works grouped under this heading

we can identify with equal justification?
Let us call "functional" our first definition
which

it in terms of what

identifies

system;

and

our

"structural"

ele

identifiable

But does

second,

of this entity?the
it "does" as an element
we

whereby

to

seek

d?finition
in a larger

test whether

all

the individual works collectively

regarded as literature in the functional
same characteristics.
of
the
of
the
word
The distinction
partake
meaning
and the structural points of view should be rigor
between
the functional
one to the other is perfectly
ously kept inmind, even though to pass from
to
In
illustrate
this
let us take the example
order
distinction,
permissible.
of advertising:
its precise function within our society is undeniably
clear;
but what of its structural identity? It can express itself though the visual
and

as well

auditory,

as other

media;

varied

as direct

inducement,

or

it may

may

or discontinuous;

in time; itmay be continuous

allusion,

description,

not

a duration

have

itmay use

as

techniques
and

antiphrasis,

so on.

for the moment

that
The unquestionable
functional
entity?assuming
not necessarily
have a corresponding
it is indeed unquestionable?does
structural entity. The one need not necessarily
imply the other, although
ismore
the affinities between them can be easily observed. The difference
is
in the point of view than in the thing itself: if literature (or advertising)
to be a structural notion,
then the function of its constituent
discovered
the functional
notion
elements will have to be determined;
conversely,
"advertising"
that of
society.

can

be

seen

Structure

to
belong
is made
up

to
of

structure

which
and

functions,

is,
functions

let

us

say,

create

the object
structure; but since it is the point of view which determines
an
one.
the
essential
difference
remains
of knowledge,
no way implies
Thus the existence of a functional
entity "literature" in
us
a
to find out
want
make
it does
that of
structural entity (although
of literature
definitions
whether
such is not the case). Now functional
al
(in terms of what it does rather than what it is) are very numerous,
a
are
like
not
when
necessarily
sociological:
metaphysician
though they
Heidegger

considers

the

essence

of

poetry,

he

too

arrives

at a functional

of truth," or that "poetry

To say that "art is the concretization
definition.
is to say what the aim of art
is the creation of being through words,"
which would allow
the specific mechanisms
should be, without defining

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

OF LITERATURE

NOTION

is here of an ontological
nature, but
himself affirms that there is no struc

it to fulfill that aim. The function

a function nonetheless.
Heidegger
tural
that

to

entity
corresponding
his
search
is "concerned

the

one

functional

only

with

great

not contain any internal criteria which would

statement
It is a mere
of art (or literature).
art?the

he

when
art."

This

elsewhere

says

definition

does

allow us to identify a work

of what a certain kind of

to do.

best?ought

that literature is only a functional

It is possible
entity. But we shall not
assume
shall
the risk of be
this
line
of
We
instead?at
pursue
thought.
a
in
the
end?that
it
also
has
structural
ing proved wrong
identity, and
us in
out
to
find
it
is.
other
have
what
attempt
Many
optimists
preceded
this

their

search:

answers

suggested

as

serve

will

of

point

departure.

concern
the
for historical detail, we shall attempt to examine
Without
two kinds of solution most frequently proposed.
to the mid-eighteenth
From antiquity
the
century, roughly speaking,
or
same definition
in
the
of
the
recurs, whether
not,
explicitly
writings
art. Upon
close examination,
is
theoreticians
of Western
this definition
seen

to

of

consist

two

distinct

elements.

art

Generically,

to the medium

is an

imitation

is imitation through
used;
visual
it is not just any
through
images. Specifically,
language, painting
not
imitated
is
real
for
what
is
but
and
need not have
imitation;
fictional,
existed. Literature
isfiction: this is its first structural definition.
over several centuries and expressed
This definition was formulated
in
varies according

which

literature

terms. Itwas probably

very different
to note that "poetry ismore
Aristotle
with the particular"
(Poetics, 1451b;
a
literary
occur
in

well):
could

sentence
reality.

not

does
Later

this property of literature which led

concerned with the general, history
as
the remark has another meaning
to

refer

will

generations

specific
view

actions,
literature

which
as

alone

essentially

to the ambiguity
false; Northrop
Frye has drawn our attention
deceptive,
of terms such as "fable," "fiction," and "myth," which apply with equal
ease to "literature" and to "falsehood." But this ismisleading:
a literary
statement

is no

more

"false"

than

it is "true."

The

earliest

modern

logi

that a literary text

true nor false but
a
has
become
today
commonplace

cians (Frege, for example)

have already pointed out
cannot be submitted
to the test of truth. It is neither

observation which
simply fictional?an
of literary criticism.
But is such a definition
really satisfactory? Aren't we guilty of substi
a
true
for
definition
what ismerely one of the consequences
of
tuting
to prevent a story relating a real event from
literature? There
is nothing
are needed,
in composition
being viewed as literature; no changes
only
to disregard
the determination
its truth and read it "as if itwere litera
ture.

Any

text

whatever

can

be

of truth will not arise precisely

other

way

given

"literary"

reading:

because the text is literature,

the

question

and not

around.

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the

LITERARY

NEW

HISTORY

Obviously, what is being offered indirectly here is one of the properties

of literature rather than its definition.
But can this property be observed
in every literary text? Is it by chance that we freely apply the word "fiction"
to some types of literature (novels, short stories, plays) but find itmuch
to apply the same word to poetry?if
indeed we ever do?
difficult
to suggest that just as the novel is neither
true nor false
It is tempting
even
an
so
turn
in
it
describe
is
neither
fiction
event,
may
poetry
though

more

nor

nonfiction.

The

even

not

does

question

as

inasmuch

arise,

poetry

does not relate any events, but is very often limited to the formulation
or an impression. The specific term "fiction" is not appli
of a meditation
to

cable

the

because

poetry

term

generic

only by losing any precise meaning

of an external
all representational
even

becomes

question
minor

genres

the world:

more

are

which

remain

relevant

is often not at
have; poetry
unto
but
sufficient
itself. The
reality,

difficult

we

when

nevertheless

exhortations,

prayers,

can

"imitation"

it may

consider

in all

present
riddles,

proverbs,

the

the

so-called

"literatures"

nursery

of
(each

rhymes

Shall we claim that they

involving of course its own special difficulties).
too "imitate," or shall we separate them completely
from the body of
we

what

call

"literature"?

If all that is usually regarded as literature is not necessarily

fictional,
not
In
Freud's
fictional
is
literature.
all
that
is
automatically
conversely,
"case
of

status
they

for

histories,"

"little

or

Hans"

example:

man"

or

contradict

should

not

to

Or,

the misadventures
is

irrelevant:

their

to say of them

is entitled

as literature,

be viewed

all myths

or

true

thesis.

Freud's

all

whether

question
are

all one

that of fiction:

is exactly
support

the

example,
the
"wolf

take

even

very

is that

different

if their fictional

is unmistakable?

character

are certainly

We

or

literature

in art.

not

the first

European

to criticize

classicism

the notion

continually

of

in

imitation
to

attempted

modify

in order to be able to retain it. For the term had to be

the concept
a
to all the
if it were to remain applicable
very
general meaning
given
But this in turn rendered
it had been associated.
activities with which
to add
to other things as well, so that it became necessary
it applicable
to
a further specification:
imitation must be "artistic," which amounts
some
as
to
At
of
its
definition.
term
be
defined
the
part
point in
using
the eighteenth
rearrangement

century
of

the

the trend

reversed

definition,

original

itself; instead
an

entirely

new

of yet another
one

was

pro

than the titles of two

transition better
posed. Nothing
In 1746, a work on
books which mark the limits of two distinct periods.
aesthetics appeared which sums up the opinion of the time: The Arts Re
in question
the principle
duced to a Single Principle, by the Abb? Batteux;
In
belle
is the imitation of beautiful nature
1785, another
("la
nature").
illustrates

work

followed:

An Attempt

the

to Unite

theArts and Letters through the Concept

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

OF LITERATURE

NOTION

of Self-Sufficiency, by Karl Philipp Moritz. The arts are again united, but
as self-sufficiency
this time in the name of beauty, understood
( "in sich
selbst

Vollendetes").

of literature will thus be based upon

The second major definition
to "please" than
the concept of beauty; it will become more
important
to "instruct." Near the end of the eighteenth
the
definition
of
century,
center
to
belief
in
the
around the
intransitive
the
(as opposed
beauty will
nature of a work of art. After having been equated with
instrumental)
the useful, beauty is now defined by its nonutilitarian
character.
"True
beauty requires that a thing signify nothing but itself, that it be a unity
art is defined
to something

in itself," writes Moritz. And

complete
"If a work of art existed only to point
become

would

it alone must

beauty,

for

perceived
music

whose

"an

for

value

for

expression

meant

the

to

themselves.

sake

of

thing." Painting
serve

case

the

of

is images

outside

any

purpose,
is a noninstru

Literature

or as Novalis

in itself alone,

resides

in

whereas

accessory;

the principal

not

and

appreciated

language

an

than

always be

themselves

is sounds

mental
said,

more

nothing

in terms of beauty:
than itself, it

other

has

expression."

this notion was to

Elaborated
Romanticists,
upon by the German
movements
dominate
in Europe.
all the Symbolist and post-Symbolist
ismore,
it was to become
What
the basis for the first modern
attempts
to

create

science

of

literature.

Be

it Russian

or American

Formalism

New Criticism,
the point of departure
is always the same. The function of
to emphasize
the "message" itself. Even today this is
poetry is essentially
the dominant
its formulation
definition,
may vary somewhat.
although
to be
To be exact, such a definition
of literature does not deserve
called

be

are

we

structural:
it

how

by

complemented

told
so.

to do

proceeds

what

poetry
the

soon

But

structural

point

to

ought
functional
of

view:

more

perspective
than

not

and

achieve,

was
any

to

other

of its aspects, it is the systematic character of a work which allows us to

it in itself. Such was already Diderot's
definition
of beauty; later

perceive

term

the
give

to

way

was
"beauty"
"structure."

to be
Formalist

which
"form,"
replaced
by
of literature
studies
will

in
have

was

turn

to

the merit

of being studies of a literary system (of the whole of literature or of the

thus creating
the new science of poetics. Literature,
individual work),
is a

then,

system,

systematic

which

language

to

attention

draws

itself,

which

becomes
autotelic. This is its second structural definition.
Let us examine
this hypothesis
in its turn. Is literary language alone in
course
can be found
not.
Of
A
being systematic?
rigorous organization
not

only

vertising,

in areas
even

also in some
that a judicial

use

usually
the

associated
same

with

techniques

regions far removed

or political discourse

literature?some,
of

rhyme,

polysemy,

such

as

ad

etc.?but

from

its province. Who

could
is organized
and obeys certain

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

deny
strict

NEW

is not

It

rules?

chance

by

that

until

the

LITERARY

and

Renaissance,

HISTORY

above

all

in

set alongside
of Poetics and as
antiquity,
were
the
task
of
those
rules
with all
which
concerned
signed
codifying
even
discourse.
One
could
further
the very
and
go
extraliterary
question
a
as
a
of
notion
such
that
of
"the
of
work,"
system
validity
literary
given
the ease with which any such system could be contrived. Language
has
a
even
limited
of
and
number
distinctive
fewer
features;
only
phonemes,
and Latin

Greek

nor

are

the

was

Rhetoric

in

categories

grammatical

each

numerous;

very

paradigm

thus repetition,
far from being difficult,
is inevitable. Saussure is known
a hypothesis
to have formulated
Latin poetry, according
concerning
to which
the poet allegedly concealed
within
the body of the work the
name

of

the

or

for whom,

person

about

the

whom,

was

poem

If

written.

the hypothesis
leads nowhere,
it is from excess rather than from lack of
name
can
in a poem of sufficient
be
found
proof: any
length. Besides,
was
to
nature to all
"This
limit
the
second
theory
poetry?
why
practice
no matter how insignificant,
into
educated Romans, who put everything,
so
as
to
And
the
Romans?
Saussure
will
far
discover
go
why
writing."
the name

in a Latin

of Eton

century;

unfortunately

text used
him

for

at that college
was

author

the

scholar from King's College, Cambridge,

Eton until a hundred
years later!
A

so

system

the

easily

test:

complementary
to be autotelic,

said

is every

seventeenth-century

the work was not used

at

Let us now
consider
system.
so
that
it
be
may
systematic
sense
a statement
The
of such

text

literary

intransitive,

in the nineteenth

a real

is not

discovered

and

opaque?

as Moritz would
to poetry which,
is relatively clear when
it is applied
of
the
Not that we
but
what
novel?
have said, is a self-sufficient
object;
to

wish

On

language
the contrary,

least)

to a mere

novel

of system; but
of

the

at

the

reduce

and hence

to

the

in any

novel
such

represent

"slice

the presence

events,

objects,

devoid

life,"

way
"opaque."
serves
(in the

language

said that the essence of a novel

technique; we are only amused

of

of

of this system does

classical

not

European
Nor

characters.

actions,

conventions

render
novel

can

it be

is not

in its language but in its narrative

by Shklovsky's remark that the sole pur
in Dostoevsky's
novels is to slow the
the
of
discussions
pose
philosophical
case is the world
in
this
what
is
of
the
narrative.
opaque
pace
Perhaps
a
not
of
could
such
but
conception
opacity (of in transi tive
represented;
as
to
of
well
ness,
autotelism)
any everyday conversation?
apply just
Many
definitions

attempts
of

have been made

literature.

But

since

in our time to bring

neither

of

them,

together

when

the two

taken

alone,

in combining
is really satisfactory,
there is little advantage
them; in or
be
and not
should
articulated
der to remedy their weakness,
they
fully
merely

connected,

or worse

still,

treated

as

if

they

were

not

different.

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

NOTION

few

examples
case.

the

OF LITERATURE

will

show,

In the chapter
of

that

however,

of Wellek

nature

"the

with

such

and Warren's
Ren?

literature,"

to define

seeks

often

of Literature

Theory

Wellek

most

is unfortunately

dealing

"literature"

in literature, by
the particular use made of language
by distinguishing
uses: the everyday and the scien
two
other
main
it
the
with
contrasting
is "connotative,"
the scientific,
the literary use of language
tific. Unlike
it is opaque
that is, rich in associations
and ambiguities;
(whereas in the
that is, without drawing attention
scientific use the sign is "transparent;
to its referent") ;and it ismultifunc
to itself, it directs us unequivocally
tional: not only referential but also expressive and pragmatic
(conative).
of everyday

the language

Unlike
organizes,

resources

the

tightens

it is systematic

use,
of

everyday

("poetic

language");

and

language
autotelic,

is within
itself.
in that its sole justification
seems to be a partisan of our second definition
of
So far Wellek
on
it
kind
of
function
literature. Emphasis
referential,
(be
any
placed
or pragmatic)
has the effect of drawing us away from lit
expressive,
the text derives its value from itself (this is what will be
erature, where
called the aesthetic function, after a theory propounded
by Jakobson and
in
of
this functional
the
The
structural
1930s).
consequences
Mukarovsky
are

approach

a trend

towards

and

systematization

an

on

emphasis

all

the

resources

of the linguistic sign.

symbolic
on
There follows, however, another distinction,
apparently expanding
use
and
the
of
the opposition
between
the everyday
literary
language.
"But

nature

the

Wellek
aspect,"
is to a world
or

poem,

of

of

literature

states,

for

fiction,

of

in a drama

are

in

other

we

words,

true;

they

is the "distinguishing

have

even

passed,

under

clearly

works,
"literary"
statements
The

imagination.
not
literally

tions." This, he concludes,

"
is, its "fictionality.
In

most
emerges
most
the

without

are

not

the

referential

"the

reference

in a novel,

in a

proposi

logical

trait of literature":
it, from

realizing

that
the

of literature to the first. The literary use of language is

charac
(and consequently
autotelic)
by its systematic
are
nor
true
statements
its
neither
which
false.
but
ter,
by
fictionality,
by
Are the two definitions
then the same? One would expect such a thesis
to be at least explicitly formulated
of proof). Wellek's
(to say nothing
second definition
no longer defined

conclusion,
tion
brings

of

that

namely,
the
us

and

sign,
no
closer

all

fiction)
to a

these
are

solution.

terms
necessary
For

(systematic
organization,
recogni
a work
to characterize
of art,

the

question

which

we

are

raising

is precisely
this: what are the relationships
among these terms?
The situation ismuch the same with Northrop
Frye, who deals with the
in the chapter entitled
"Literal and Descriptive
Phases: Symbol
question
as Motif and as Sign" in his Anatomy of Criticism. He too begins by making

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NEW

LITERARY

HISTORY

a distinction

use of language
between
literary and nonliterary
(thereby
Wellek's
"scientific"
and
combining
"everyday" uses into one category).
an outward and an inward orienta
The implicit opposition
is between
tion (toward what lies beyond the signs and toward the signs themselves,
or toward other signs, respectively).
The oppositions
between
centrifu
and
between
and
literal
between
gal
centripetal,
descriptive
phases,
are all related to the first distinction.
and motif-symbols
It
sign-symbols
is inward direction which characterizes
the literary use of language.
In
it should be noted that Frye is no more willing
to
than Wellek
passing,
affirm

the exclusive

affirms

its

of this orientation

presence

in literature;

he merely

predominance.

Once again we are faced with a version of our second definition

of
we
literature and once again, before knowing
have
slid
towards
back
it,
the first. Frye writes: "In all literary verbal structures the final direction
of meaning
are

secondary,
not
hence

are

for

to

their

It

...

the

as a structure

it is no longer

to a
is no

and

sake,

importance

sentence,
ence

do

to the primary

its own

for

works

literary
not
false.
true,

are subordinated
words

In literature,

is inward.

In

doubt

transparence
is
of

in both,

in

synonymous

opposed
the word

truth

of

subordinated
In

this

last

(that is, adher

to

opacity.
"inward"

to the other,
with

and

or

a structure

are

but nonfictionality

assert,

fact

sign-values
symbols
of interconnected
motifs."

from one definition

turn

or
of

questions

of

for this passage

being

pretend

literature,

of outward meaning

to describe

literary aim of producing

which
system)
the ambivalence

true-false

the standards
not

"opaque"

accounts

which

for the term is present

as well

as

"fictional."

it emphasizes
the
literary use of language is "inward" both because
the
is
and
because
the
evoked
fictional.
themselves
reality
signs
signs
by
But perhaps beyond mere polysemy
the elementary
(and thus beyond
a
two
is
there
mutual
between
the
of
confusion)
meanings
implication
the word "inward": could it be that all "fiction" is "opaque," and that
this when he
"opacity" is "fictional"? Frye seems to suggest precisely
asserts that if an historical work were to comply with the principles
of
a
an
of
and
thus
of
autotelic
it
structure),
(indicative
symmetry
system,
enter
of
and
hence
of
fiction.
But
the
realm
would
literature,
thereby
of "inward" really imply each other? An examina
do the two meanings
the nature of the
tion of this question will perhaps help to elucidate
of literature.
the two definitions
between
relationship
a history book does follow the rules of symmetry
that
(and
Supposing
to our second definition),
does it thereby also
is thus literature according
The

become
fictional
does not. It may
"true"

to

"false,"

litical discourse

It clearly
(and thus literature by the first definition)?
a bad history book; but the change
is from
become
and

not

from

can be highly

"true-false"

to

systematic without

"fictional."

Similarly,

automatically

po

becoming

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

account

one

a real

of

is there a radical difference

nor

atization

journey

on

emphasis
at least
Thus

an

of

the

in the

one?even

imaginary

the tendency

direction

inward
one

to be

proves

implication

of

not? Neither

the

fictional.

mutual

that

and

and the other

is fictional

text

In terms of systematization,

fictional.

OF LITERATURE

NOTION

though

toward system
to

is sufficient
of

consequences

render

the would-be

untenable.

What about the other? Does fictionality necessarily

imply a contextual
on
the
orientation?
given to the latter ex
Everything
depends
meaning
Some

pression.

of

recurrence,

simple

seem

remarks

Frye's
or of

syntagmatic

to

indicate

rather

than

it is a matter

that

of

orienta

paradigmatic

tion. If this be the case, it goes without

saying that there are texts which
a narrative can be governed by the
are clearly devoid of such properties:
of this type
and causality alone
logic of succession
(although examples
are admittedly
we
sense of
term
If
the
in
understand
its
broadest
rare).
the
all

some

of

"presence
fictional

texts

sort

possess

nature?does

whatever

of

then
organization,"
"inward
orientation";

this

The

not?

second

it is

equally
but what
is

implication

thus

clear

that

text?of
no

more

true than the first, and there is no justification

for postulat
rigorously
are
one
two
of the word "inward"
in fact
and the
ing that the
meanings
same. Once
have
(and the two definitions)
again the two distinctions
been merely
combined without being fully articulated.
can account
All that can be said is that each definition
for a great
number
of works usually called literary, but by no means
for all; and
that they are admittedly
linked by mutual
affinities, but not by mutual
not
The
discussion
has
the stage of
implication.
beyond
proceeded
and

vagueness

The
by

the

imprecision.

failure

relative
nature

of

the

of our

investigation
itself.

question

We

might

have

how can we distinguish what is literature from what

the literary and the nonliterary
difference
between
But

to ask

the

such

about
questions
another
coherent

of

existence
time

come

has

to examine

the

notion

this

of
that

notion,
notion

of

be explained

perhaps

constantly

literature

asked

ourselves:

is not? What
is the
use of language?
is to assume

"nonliterature."

the

Perhaps

as well.

one

Whether
speaks of descriptive writing
(Frye) or of everyday usage
a
which
(Wellek), of practical or normal
language,
unity is postulated
turns out to be highly problematical.
It seems obvi
upon examination
ous

that

this

"usage,"

which

includes

jokes

as well

as

practical

conversa

and law as well as

tion, the ritualistic
language of administration
of the journalist or the politician,
scientific as well as philosophical
is not a single entity at all. No one knows exactly
religious writing,
of
discourse
there are, but it is easy to see that there
many
types
more

than

one.

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

that
and
how
are

10

NEW

Another

notion,

in

generic

at this point be introduced:

correlative of the functional
to

sary

the

combinations

within
But

of

must

literature,

latter is the structural

of "use" (of a language).
It is neces

rules

of

are

which

language,

a
phonology,
common
rules

sentence,
set of

the

between

notion

common

only a part of the rules which govern our

They only fix the norm of grammatical

to all who use it, constitute

concrete
verbal production.
for words.

the

HISTORY

that of discourse. The

concept

it because

introduce

to

relation

LITERARY

a common

and

meaning
and

to all utterances

the

exact formulation
of a specific utterance
there is a gulf of indeterminacy.
This gulf is bridged by the rules of each particular
discourse
(thus an
in the same way as an intimate one), as
official letter will not be written
inherent
in the context of the speech act (the
well as by the limitations
identity of the speaker
The

act).

of

rules

the time and place

and the listener,

are more

discourse

restricted

than

those

of the speech
of

language,

than those of a specific speech act.

is in turn defined
A particular
type of discourse
by the list of rules
is characterized
it must obey. The sonnet, for example,
which
by extra
ex
in principle
limitations on its meter and rhyme. Scientific discourse
but

less restricted

cludes

any

to

reference

to any but the present

their

while

discourse,

States

and

semantic

of

view

of

Jean
rules

second

of

person

semantic

construction

metric

in France

Cohen
are

the

rules

as well

verb,

as

in other

lacking
in

is determined

of

have

shown

in modern

aside

put

structure

the

or

the

course

rules consist, paradoxi

speech act. Certain discursive
various rules of language; Samuel Levin in the United

of the individual
cally, of abolishing
or

first

the

tense. Jokes have

certain

how

But

poetry.
are
rules

a discourse,

always

grammatical
from
the
point
never
added,

subtracted. The proof of this is that even in "deviant" poetic utterances

rather than being
rule is easily reconstructed;
the broken
linguistic
a
new
rule.
In literary studies
contradicted
it was merely
abolished,
by
are discussed under the heading
of "genres" (or
the rules of discourse
sometimes

"styles,"

"modes,"

etc.).

of various types of discourse we must refor

If we admit the existence
on literary specificity
terms: are
our question
in the following
mulate
there rules which apply to all forms of literature (intuitively identified as
such), and only to those forms? The only possible answer, it seems tome,
is a
negative
occurrence

one.
of

Numerous

"literary"

examples

have
outside

characteristics

already

been

literature

noted
(from

of
puns

the
and

meditations).
nursery rhymes, journalism and travelogues to philosophical
no common denominator
for
It has become
equally obvious that there is
all

"literary"

productions,

unless

it be

the

use

of

language.

ifwe

turn away from "literature" itself

The situation changes radically
no
on
There
is
the rules
its subcategories.
and focus
difficulty in defining
the
been
function
of the
of certain types of discourse
(this has always

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE

NOTION

various

Artes

OF LITERATURE

Poeticae,

our

although

with

admittedly

tion and prescription).

difficult,

11

much

confusion

between

In other

types the formulation

sense

"discursive

of

descrip

of rules

ismore
us

convinces

competence"

that they do exist. In fact we have already seen that the first definition
of
literature applies particularly well to narrative prose, and the second to
can perhaps be
definitions
poetry. The origin of these utterly independent
was
in
the
of
found
literature which
in their formation.
considered
type
The first is based on narrative
(Aristotle discusses epic and tragedy, not
the second on poetry
(as is apparent from Jakobson's
poetry),
analyses
: in each case one of the two major
of particular poems)
literary genres
has been defined as if it were the whole of literature.
can be identi
The rules of the so-called nonliterary
types of discourse
same
fied inmuch the
the following hypothesis:
from
way. I thus propose
a structural
point of view, each type of discourse usually referred to as
relatives which resemble
itmore
than do other
literary has nonliterary
a certain type of
For example,
types of literary discourse.
lyric poetry
has more
rules in common with prayer than with a historical novel of
the War and Peace variety. Thus the opposition
literature and
between
is replaced by a typology of the various types of discourse.

nonliterature
can

Frye
ary

be

universe

quoted
has

once
expanded

again,
into

this

time

a verbal

reservation:

without

"our

liter

universe."

results of this inquiry might at first appear negative,

since it es
a
denies
of
the
notion
of
structural
and
"literature,"
sentially
legitimacy
The

contests

the

existence

of

homogeneous

"literary

or not the functional notion is

legitimate,
is not. But the result is only seemingly
simple

notion

of

literature

we

now

have

discourse."

Whether

the structural notion definitely

since instead of the
negative,
a number

of

different

types

of

each equally deserving of attention.

If the choice of our object
discourse,
of study is not dictated by purely ideological
reasons (which would then
have to be spelled out), we no longer have the right to limit ourselves
to
even
we
are
if
the
purely literary subspecies,
employed by
"Department
of Literature"
field of
(be it French, English, or Russian). A coherent
at
is
study demanding
present hopelessly
recognition
among
fragmented
semanticists
and litt?rateurs, socio- and ethnolinguists,
linguistic philoso
phers, and psychologists.
An explanation might be found, by the same token, for the dominance
of these two definitions,
rather than any other, throughout
the history of
most
in
their
Viewed
which
alone
confers
sense,
literary theory.
general
their
them
become
of
affirmations
the
upon
validity, they
significant
nature of literary texts and of their systematic organization.
But isn't
once system and
the definition
of any discourse?at
At
signification?
to
define
a
the
defines
theoretician
instead
literature,
tempting
logically
superior

notion,

the

"genus

proximum."

These

are

indeed

its two

essen

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

12
tial

NEW

and

instruction,

beauty

whatever

aspects,

complementary
and

truth,

gratuitous

they
play

are
and

LITERARY

called:
imitation,

HISTORY

pleasure
syntax

and
and

is in no way unimport
the variation in terminology
semantics
(although
same thing, the various terms signify it
to
ant: although
the
refer
they
is
have failed to do, however,
in different ways). What
the theoreticians
literature within
to indicate the "specific difference" which characterizes
is in any way
the "genus proximum."
Could it be that no such difference
not
does
exist?
literature
In
that
other
words,
perceptible?
Centre

National
Translated

la

de
by

Recherche
Lynn

Moss

Scientifique?Paris
and
Braunrot
Bruno

This content downloaded from 193.137.34.99 on Mon, 05 Oct 2015 09:24:04 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions