De-automatising in Verbal Art: On notions by Mukařovský and Hasan

Centuries to centuries, various forms of art have been manifesting the world. How humans interpret these creative works are, in many ways, subject to change. Verbal art or literature texts are even more complicated to analyse for the fact of how language itself is dynamic and evolving.  A notable Prague School linguist Jan Mukařovský once introduced a framework to analyse artefacts aesthetically, emphasising on language and the semantic value of its patterns. This essay aims to illustrate Mukařovský's notion of de-automatisation using the example of a poem 'Past' by a German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and how it resonates with Ruqaiya Hasan's foregrounding.

In order to begin understanding verbal art and verbal science, it is essential to get a glimpse of the notion of de-automatisation. Mukařovský (1964) suggested that there is a norm of the standard language on the background distinguishing from the poetic language on the foreground. A significant contrast to the linguistic norm, in other words, automatisation of the text is the basis. For example, in a piece of verbal art, Bonhoeffer's Past, the present is automatised, so the contrasting present perfect tense, past tense and future tense are foregrounded (See table 1). Simple present is habitual here since it is the subjective present of the poet. After focusing on the present sentiment on the lost past, the future tense used in sentence N12 could indicate the discovery of a visible future. It reveals that the problem of the lost past was all the time tied up with the problem of a lost future (O' Donovan, 2009).

Table 1            Lexical selection (tenses)

The maximum of foregrounding could be achieved by the consistency of components (Mukařovský, 1964), whereas foregrounding becomes noticeable because of its consistency in aspects of stabilities in semantic direction and textual location (Hasan, 1989). Numerous 'lexical selections' and 'semantic relationships' point towards the same direction of meaning, and the patterns tend to be shown in a significant location in the text like a climax. Not only the tenses, other elements such as the logical relations, process configuration and themes also destinate to the 'dominant'. All of the foregrounded elements (see tables 2, 3 and 4) tend to concerned with the message brought by stanza N. In this last and the most significant stanza, a determining -er role (see table 3) which has never appeared in the earlier parts of the poem is suddenly present. Gott (God) whom behüte (care) is a foregrounded subject matter, leading to the dominant of the longing of God and the regaining of confidence in Him, despite all the depression, loss, and fear the poet written above. Moreover, the theme of Das Neue (new) exhibits the poet's discovery by then he no longer addresses his past as Du, but himself instead. Backed by positive wordings like lebendigstes Stück (most living strain) and Ruhe (repentance), the last five lines (N8-12) could be seen as a kind of self-comforting and reassurance of his faith after a prayer to God.

Table 2            Semantic relationship (logical relations) (selected)

Table 3            Lexical selection (-er roles) (selected)

Table 4            Semantic relationship (themes) (selected)

As Meares (2016) stated, the poetic language is used symbolically with words more than a single meaning. If considering the poem's historical background, there could be rooms for literary criticism. Nevertheless, investigating the automatised and de-automatised elements is also a well-displayed way to analyse the artefact. The first order of meaning in 'will' (N12) is the care by God in the future itself. A deeper meaning or a dominant of the poet's loss of his future and his faith to God is then revealed by foregrounding.

According to Hasan (1989), symbolic articulation acts as the connection of the other two strata from the semiotic system of verbal art, which are theme and verbalisation. It promotes the idea that the actions or situations in the text are with dual status. The first order of meanings could be the symbols and signs of the second order of meanings, comparable to what Halliday proposed as 'a relation of congruence' (1998/2004a, p.94) and what Mukařovský described as the 'figurative and metaphorical meaning' (1964, p.184). Foregrounding with contrast and consistency, in this context, emphasises the components of meanings by ascribing the second-order meanings to the first-order ones. However, Hasan's quantitative approach of foregrounding was disagreed by Mukařovský (1964) though they both believed that the foregrounded and the automatised parts contribute to the meaning of the text (Hasan, 1989). It can be assumed that the notions by Mukařovský and Hasan resonate each other a lot, but the purpose and practice are very much diverse.

The stake of structural analysis of a literary work is the text's 'plural' instead of its truth (Barthes, 1980), which implies that the movement of analysis is precisely to dissolve the text into multiple and simultaneous codes during its ongoing process of unravelling. The 'unravelling' could most likely echo with Mukařovský's notion as both exclaims the exploration of the possible and the continued value of a piece of verbal art. Mukařovský did not neglect the possibility of distorting linguistic components and also a 'renewal of norm' (1964, pp. 172-173).

Mukařovský's notion of de-automatisation could function with consistent foregrounding in order to achieve particular aesthetic values. The theory is indeed applicable to a broad spectrum of texts which enlightens Hasan's foregrounding and her well-structured method of verbal art analysis. Language is evolving as well as the literary works filled by language. New meanings and different perspectives could continuously unravel and ravel themselves, and that is the greatest pleasure of studying languages.

References

Barthes, R. (1980) ‘Where to begin’. In New Critical Essays (R. Howard, Trans.) (pp. 79-89). New York: Hill & Wang. (Original work published 1972)

Deacon, T. (1997). The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: Norton.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Webster, J. J. (2004). ‘On the Language of Physical Science’. In The Language of Science (pp. 140-158). New York: Continuum.

Halliday, M. A., & Webster, J. J. (2004). Things and Relations: Regrammaticizing Experience as Technical Knowledge. In The Language of Science (p. 94). New York: Continuum.

Hasan, R. (1989). Linguitics, language and verbal art (pp. 29-55, 90-106). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Meares, R. (2016). The Poet's Voice in the Making of Mind (p.59). Oxon & New York: Routledge.

Mukařovsky, J. (1983). ‘Standard Language and Poetic Language’. In J. Vachek, L. Dušková & P. A. Luelsdorff (Authors), Praguiana: Some basic and less known aspects of the Prague Linguistic School (pp. 165-185). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

O’ Donovan, O. (2009). 'Past’: Bonhoeffer’s ‘Past’. In B. Wannenwetsch (Ed.), Who am I?: Bonhoeffer's theology through his poetry (pp. 32-37). London: T. & T. Clark.

Webster, J. J. (2015). ‘Thinking About Language’. In: Understanding Verbal Art (pp.1-27). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.