Shrawan K Sharma

Creative Use of Language in Literature: Indian and Western Aesthetic Thinking

 

Literature is one of the fine arts and it aims at giving rise to aesthetic experience or pleasure. A reader experiences this pleasure in two ways – haphazardly as a layman methodically as a trained man. Former has its worth as vague or even confused while the latter remains accounted for. It is the latter mode which requires aesthetic or critical tools to analyze and relish literature. Some scholars may think that to relish literature, there is no need of critical tools. They hold that the application of critical tools to a piece of literature hampers the aesthetic experience because the scholar is lost in the mechanical enquiry.  This objection, no doubt, has a logic for the reader who is not a trained reader or who is not used to applying such tools to a literary piece. For a trained reader this objection has no value because for him such an application to a piece of literature is not a mechanical task but an assimilative factor of reading and enjoying that piece of literature.

People often enjoy literature before they understand it. Because certain words or phrases may appeal to them or they may get a general impression of the meaning of a piece of literature and like it.  But a trained reader reads a piece of literature most carefully before he  understands enough to enjoy it. If he is simply bewildered by a piece of literature, he cannot enjoy it. On this basic level, therefore, enjoyment is closely related to understanding. For a trained reader, pleasure  lies in the process of working out of the meaning of the piece of literature. This process of working out of the meaning of a piece of literature leads to the close study of the language of literature. For making a close study of language of literature, the reader is required to be equipped with   literary theories or tools to know the creative use of language.

The present study aims at exploring a significant area of intersection between the Indian and Western aesthetic thinking regarding the creative use of language. The study, underlining the creative use of language as given in the   modern literary theories of the west, gives an overview of the creative use of language in kāvya (literature) put forth by the Indian ancient ācāryās in their theories.

As far as the language of literature is concerned, there has been a marked awareness in the recent decades. The writers, critics, linguists, philosophers, and stylisticians all have become conscious of the creative use of language of literature. To them style and formal features are important aspects for making an analysis and of working out of the meaning of a piece of literature. Most of the modern literary theories, formalism, new criticism, stylistics, structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstruction, discourse analysis, semiotics and dialogic criticism, in one way or the other emphasize the study of the language in order to understand the meaning of a piece of literature and relish it.

Formalism views literature as a specialized mode of language which is self-focused and does not make extrinsic references. It offers a special kind of experience by drawing attention to its own formal features, excluding the subject matter and social values. Here the object of study is “literariness” which consists “in the maximum foregrounding of the utterance i.e. the foregrounding of “the act of expression’ the act of speech itself.” The primary aim of literature in thus foregrounding its linguistic medium is to estrange or defamiliarise. The writer, by disrupting the mode of ordinary linguistic discourse, makes strange the ordinary world of every day perception and renews the readers’ lost capacity for fresh sensation. The formalistic critic stresses the function of purely literary devices to produce the effect of freshness in readers’ sensation. The foregrounding properties or artistic devices are deviations from ordinary language. These devices consist of patterns of speech sounds or alliteration, rhythm, rhyme, grammatical constructions, words images.

New criticism holds the following aspects: A poem is a verbal object and has a complex unity of verbal ironies, ambiguities and paradoxes or multiple meanings. Parts of the poem are organically related.  A close reading of the text enables a reader understand and enjoy a poem. A poem should be analyzed not by emphasizing on character, thought and plot. It should be analyzed also not by emphasizing on the extrinsic background i.e. historical, sociological, psychological, biographical and literary background. The reader should transcend all these extrinsic background to check the intentional and affective fallacies and should concentrate on the use of language- phonemes, words, sentences, figures of speech and symbols.

Stylistics insists on the need to be objective by focusing sharply on the text itself and by setting out to discover the rules governing the process by which linguistic elements and patterns in a text accomplish their meanings and literary effects. It can be defined as “the study of the use of language in literature” which involves the entire range of the “general characteristics of language… as a medium of literary expression”1 The general characteristics which are identified by the concepts of modern linguistics, are the stylistic features or formal properties:

-    Phonological (patterns of speech sounds, meter or rhyme)
-    Syntactic (types of sentence structure)
-    Lexical (abstract vs. concrete words, the relative frequencies of nouns, verbs, adjectives)
-    Rhetorical (the characteristic use of figurative language, imagery and so on)

Structuralism views literature as a second order system that uses the first order structural system of language as its medium. In the  structuralist view

- A literary work is simply a text constituted by a play of component elements   according to  specifically literary conventions and codes.
- There is no reference to reality existing outside the literary system itself.
- The individual author or subject is allowed no initiative, expressive intentions or   design as the origin or producer of the work. 
- The conscious self is treated as the product of the workings of the linguistic system
- The mind of an author is described as an imputed space within which the impersonal, ‘already-always’ existing system of literary language, conventions, codes and rules of combination get precipitated into a particular text. Rolland Barthes expresses it dramatically saying that author is dead.
-  Author is replaced by the reader as the central agency in criticism
- Reader is dissolved into the impersonal activity of reading which, by bringing into play requisite conventions, codes, and makes literary sense of the sequence   of words, phrases and sentences.

It says that in order to understand the piece of literature, its language should be analyzed primarily on the explicit model of modern linguistic theory, which was developed by Ferdinand de Saussure in his Course in General Linguistics.   Structuralists often apply a variety of linguistic concepts to the analysis of a literary text such as

phonemic level of organization
morphemic level of organization 
relationship between paradigmatic and syntagmatic 
the model of the syntax in a well-formed sentence
      
In poststructural criticism what is called theory has come to be foregrounded as the central and dominant issue, so that it becomes incumbent on every critic to theorize his/ her position and practice.   Decentring of Subject is another feature. Michel Foucault and Rolland Barthes announced “the disappearance of the author” or more dramatically “ the death of the author”.  They did not, of course, mean to deny that an individual is a necessary link in the chain of events that results into a  text. What they denied was the validity of the key function or role hitherto assigned in Western thought to a uniquely individual.   The de-centering of the author gives birth to  the reader or interpreter as the focal figure in poststructural accounts of signifying practices. This figure, like the author, is stripped of the traditional human attributes of purposiveness and initiative and converted into impersonal process called reading. This reading engages a text, a structure of signifiers for reading process. In its turn text loses its individuality and is often represented as the manifestations of ecriture or writing in general in which the traditional boundaries between literary, philosophical, historical, legal and other classes of text are considered to be both artificial and superficial. In poststructural criticism another important aspect is discourse, which supplements “text”as the name for the verbal material which is the primary concern of literary criticism. The term designates all verbal structures and implies the superficiality of the boundaries between literary and non-literary modes of signification. The critics conceive of discourse as social parlance or language in use, and consider it to be the both the product and manifestation not of a timeless linguistic system but of particular social conditions, class structures and power relationships that alter in the course of history.

In the theory of deconstruction the point of vantage is that “ there is nothing outside text.” Derrida holds that in order to interpret a text one cannot go beyond the sequence of verbal signs to anything that stands outside of, and independent of, the language system that constitutes the text. Derrida insists that  all  Western theories of language and its uses are partly logocentric and partly phonocentric. By logocentric he means to say is that the uses of language are partly centered or grounded on “the metaphysics of presence.” By phonocentric he means to say is that the uses of language grant implicitly or explicitly logical priority or privilege to speech over writing as the model for analyzing all discourse. By logos or presence, Derrida signifies a self- certifying absolute, ground or foundation outside the play of language itself that is directly present to our awareness and suffice to centre ( that is ‘to anchor and organize) the structure of the linguistic system in such a way as to fix the bounds, coherence, and determine meanings of any spoken or written utterance within that system. He directs his skeptical exposition against the phonocentric assumption—which he regards as central in Western theories of language—that at the instant of speaking, the intention of a speaker to mean something determinate by an utterance is immediately and fully present in the speaker’s consciousness and communicable to an auditor.

Discourse analysis, unlike the traditional linguists and philosophers of language, as well literary students of style and stylistics who have typically focused their analysis on isolated units of language, concerns itself with the use of language in a running discourse, continued over a sequence of sentences and involving the interaction of speaker or writer and auditor  or reader in a specific situational context. There is an illocutionary force of an utterance that lacks an explicit indicator of its illocutionary intention. It holds that users of language share a set of implicit expectation called communicative presumption which helps to make the utterance meaningful and intelligible. Other language theorists have expanded the collective assumptions that help to make utterances meaningful and intelligible, and serve also to make a sustained discourse instead of a mere collocation of independent sentences. These collective assumptions are:

1. Writers or speakers and readers or hearers share a large body of non-linguistic   knowledge and experience.

2. Writers use language that is intentional, purposive and in accordance with linguistic and cultural convention.

3. There is a shared knowledge of the complex ways on which the meaning of the   text varies with the particular situation in which it takes place.

Semiotics, a general science  of signs, holds that all human activities and productions like bodily postures and gestures, the social rituals we perform, the clothes we wear, the meals we serve, the buildings we inhabit, the objects we deal with convey common meanings  to members who participate in a particular culture.

According to dialogic criticism  a  literary  work  is  not  a  text  whose  meanings  are produced by the play of impersonal linguistic or economic or cultural forces but a site for the dialogic interaction of multiple voices, or modes of discourse, each of which is not merely a verbal but a social phenomenon and as such is the product of manifold determinants of class, social group and speech community. Each utterance owes its precise inflection and meaning to attendant factors:

- the relation of its speaker to the actual or anticipated listener
- the relation of the utterance to the prior utterances to which it is a response
- the relation of the utterance to the social situation in which it is interpreted.

As a whole the contemporary literary theories have the following spectrum at various levels:
-  Phonetic level of organization (patterns of speech sounds, meter or rhyme)
-  Lexical level
- Syntactic level (types of sentence structure- deep structure & surface structure, paradigmatic and syntagmatic   
- Rhetorical level (the characteristic use of figurative language, imagery and so on)
-  At the level of gestures and physical actions
-  At the level of relation of the writer to the reader
- At the level of relation of the utterance to the prior utterances to which it is a response
- At the level of relation of the utterance to the social situation in which it is interpreted.

It is remarkable to note that there is a conspicuous correspondence between the above mentioned formulations of  western contemporary literary theories and those of  Indian  literary theories. Indian ācāryās (ancient scholars)were really aware of  the critical problems pertaining to the language of literature. The language of literature is one of the much discussed issues in Indian poetics. Krishnaswamy rightly holds, “the whole field of Sanskrit poetics may be regarded as one continued attempt to unravel the mystery of beauty of poetic language.”2 The Indian ācāryās have made several exploratory, but penetrating, contributions on many issues, having a distinct bearing on language in literature, that still confront modern scholars. Although Indian ācāryās do not use the terminology of modern criticism, their formulations on language of literature are seminal. Anandavardhan, the greatest exponent of  the dhvani theory (theory of suggestion), declares that the ways of expressions are infinite and there is no end to poetic individuations.3 Rajashekhar  says that the things described do not delight us in literature. It is the creative use of language only which either delights  or disturbs us. Abhinavagupta believes that literary beauty  ensues from formal and structural features of a composition.4  The Sanskrit ācāryās hold that it is a literary linguistic presentation that possesses some element of art and represents an object as it figures in literary imagination. It is this language that is capable of arousing the interest of an appreciative reader of fine taste and is sufficient of for the aesthetic experience.  Sanskrit ācāryās have examined the creative use of language from various standpoints, rasa (aesthetic pleasure), alaṁkāra (embellishment), rīti (style), dhvani (suggestion), vakrokti (oblique expression)and aucitya (propriety). All the ācāryās  consider their respective theories as the soul of poetry.

The rasa siddhānta  (theory of aesthetic experience)  is based on the four kinds of abhinayās  (acting/expression)— āngika abhinaya (bodily expression) to depict     emotions/feelings of a character being played by the actor, vācika abhinaya (linguistic expression) to express emotions/feelings, tone, diction, pitch of a particular character, āhārya abhinaya  (costumes of the characters and  stage decoration)  to enhance expression,  sāttvika abhinaya (voluntary changes expressed by the  presence of tears, mark of horripilation, change of facial color, trembling of lips, enhancing of nostrils)  to express the deepest emotions of a character.  It also includes four kinds of vrttīs (modes of productions)--bhāratī (dominance of spoken contents) kaṣikī (dominance of dance and music) sāttvatī (dominance of elevated and heroic feelings) and ārabha­ī (dominance of violent and conflictual actions, and the four pravrttīs--avantī, dakṣinātyā,  pātīcālī  and magadhī  (the tastes of audience; four kinds of atodyās  (musical instruments used on the stage); gānam or dhruvās (songs sung in the course of dramatic action at five junctures-- praveśikā (song sung before the entry of a character), naiṣkrāmikī  (song sung to sooth emotions of the audience after a very moving or shocking scene), kṣepikī  (song sung to create an intervention) and antarā (song sung in between episodes to entertain the audience).
Thus the main topic dealt with in the Nātya-śāstra is the harmonious and creative use of language--  both verbal and non-verbal—which makes the expression a highest kind of poetry. Bharata puts this  harmonious and creative use of language in his Nātya-śāstra in the following way: “vibhāvanubhāvavyābhicārisamyogata rasani¬apattih” (the savouring of the emotion is possible through the combination or integration of these elements: vibhāva (causes and determinants of the rise of an emotion) anubhāva (gestures expressive of what is going on in the heart or the mind of main characters, like casting a terrified glance, heaving a sigh or involuntarily shedding  a tear)and vyābhicāribhāvās (transitory emotions which go along with and consequently reinforce prevailing mood  or emotional disposition).  The vibhāvās (causes and determinants of the rise of an emotion)are of two kinds: ālamban (supporting causes, usually the hero or the heroine or such objects) and uddīpan  (features or circumstances that accentuate the feelings of ālamban ( hero or  heroine). The ālamban (supporting causes, usually the hero or the heroine or such objects) are again of two types--viṣayālamban (person or object of the rise of an emotion or  the person or object for whom the emotion is awakened)and āṣrālamban (person in whom the emotion is awakened).Through the conjunction of these elements the poet activates, with  some kind of empathetic induction, the propensity of sthāyī bhāvās (basic sentiments) in the reader  and the movement it is consummated, the sahṛdaya  (sensitive reader) experiences an afflatus or transport  which is designed as  rasa (aesthetic sentiment). The pronouncements of Bharata regarding the use of language—verbal and non-verbal-- are pronounced in all the modern literary theories of the west, though not as comprehensive as made by Bharata.

The exhaustive treatment of alaṁakārās (figures)is self-evident in admitting the importance of the use of language of poetry.  It can be said that  the language of poetry  consisting of the whole range of possible figures of speech or alaṁakārās is important for literature. It is the figures that dominate the literary speculation. What the modern literary theories of the west speaks today of figures and images, the ancient ācāryās emphasized centuries before. According to them, a poet uses a language of figures, creates an image to delineate the heightened feelings, the effect of  beauty, the effect of qualities, the nature, the action or activities,  the  circumstances, the  internal state and character as whole, the physical beauty and the  thought in tune with feelings. The alaṁakār siddhānta (theory of figures) defines kāvya   as  ‘śabdarthau sahitau kāvyam’  (togetherness of word and meaning). Here it is not to be taken as a mere insipid statement but it should be possessed of some charm created by the figures of speech. According to Bhamah, alaṁakār is the most essential element of poetry and it consists in  the striking manner of putting a striking idea in equally striking words. Thus poetry   should be possessed of some charm, created by the figures of speech. In Kāvyālaṁakāra (5C-6C AD) Bhamah makes a shift from the grammatical purity of words to brilliance of meaning.His treatise includes thirty-nine alaṁakārās. Dandin’s conception of  alaṁakāra, in his Kāvyadarśa (6C AD), includes guṇas also in his concept of alaṁakārās.  Rudrata’s division of alaṁakārās, in his Kāvyālaṁakāra (9C AD),into two broad categories: śabdālaṁakāra (verbal figures) and arthālaṁakāra (semantic figures) and then  śabdālaṁakāra (verbal figures) into five broad heads: vakrokti  (oblique expression), śleṣa (paronomasia), citra (imagery), anuprāsa (alliteration), yamaka (repetition of sounds with different meanings)  and arthālaṁakāra (semantic figures) which are again divided into four broad heads: vāstava (realism), aupamya  (comparison), atiśaya  (exaggeration) and sleṣa  (coalescence)- all these categories and sub-categories are self evident to establish the fact that poetry require the creative use of language. Acarya Vaman, the proponent of  the riti siddhānta (theory of style), deserves special attention as regards his attitude to the alaṁakāras. In his Kāvyālaṁakārasūtra (9C AD), he holds that poetry is entertainable because of alaṁakārās (“kāvyamgrahyamalamakarat”) and like Dandin includes gunās  in his concept of alaṁakārās.  Anandavardhana’s view in Dhvanyāloka (9C AD)that  “alaṁakārās are those elements which, depending upon word and meaning , minister to the generation of poetic charm , being external embellishments; the central element is dhvani which is the soul of poetry” also certifies the creative use of language in literature.

The  rīti siddhānta (theory of style)of Vaman is also based on three types of styles of the creative use of language. He  opens  his treatise with the aphorism, “kāvyam grayam alaṁakārāt” (that is, poetry is acceptable due to alaṁakārās). In the vrtti (style) he states that the word kāvya is suggestive of that union of word and meaning which is cultured with guṇās and alaṁakārās. In a word the rīti theory leads to the use of language of poetry by emphasizing on  the phrasal and verbal organization of literature. He divides this organization in three ways. The first is asamās (the phrasal organization, devoid of compounds) . It has mādhurya (sweetness- melody). Here guṇa which generates special delight by liquefying the reader’s psyche is mādhurya (sweetness and melody) . It is experienced more and more in compositions delineating the sambhog śṛangār, the karuna, the vipralambha and śānta rasa. It consists of the repetition of phonemes which imparts melodious music. The second is madhyama-samāsa (phrasal organization, made up of small compounds) .  It pervades the entire mind of the reader immediately even as fire catches the dry fuel. It is called  prasād. Phrases which are easily understandable produce this excellence. It well accords with different rasās which are helped in their arousal due to it. The last type of rīti is dīrgha-samāsa (the phrasal organization made up of long compounds). It has ojas  (elegance and emotionality) which excites and inflames the psyche, expanding it. It attains prominence in the delineation of vīra,  bībhatsa and raudra. It is generated by a combination of plosive sounds, semi vowels and hard consonants and long compounds.

What discourse analysis and dialogic criticism pronounce as illocutionary intention and social phenomenon in the play of language, Anandavardhana elevates it to a full-fledged theory based on meaning. On the basis of language used and the meaning imparted, Anandavardhana divides  dhvani into the following categories: arthāntarasankramitavācya or partial transformation, atyantatiraskṛta vācya (complete transformation) , vastu dhvani (suggestion of fact), alaṁkāra dhvani (suggestion of poetic figure), rasa dhvani (suggestion of rasa). Dhvani theory of Anandavardhan   which  focuses on the meaning, is based on the creative use of language. Anandavardhana holds that dhvani takes place only when the language of poetry is used creatively and so a reader and a poet must know the cultural nuances of the language. He holds that Dhvani or the suggestive meaning  is indicated by  a) composition b) phoneme c) word d) sentence e) construction f) case termination g) personal termination h) number  i)  affix j) compound. It is enlightening to see how the ācāryās of dhvani theory discuss the powers of words and the modes of expression. The powers of words explain an epistemological process, taking place in the referent, the image and the symbol. The three powers of words are known as abhidhā, lakṣaṇā and vyañjanā. In his book, The Philosophy of Grammar Jesperson mentions the three distinct things,  expression, suppression and impression to mean these powers. Abhidhā is the chief power of words. Mahimabhatta, the  protagonist of the school states that vyañjanā is always latent in abhidhā. As we delve deep into abhidhā, we get the meaning of vyañjanā. Just as an arrow penetrates into the skin, the flesh and reaches the heart, the literal meaning ultimately goes deep beneath its surface meaning to convey vyangathā( the suggested meaning) . The western rhetoric has the figure of words, viz, metonymy, synecdoche, the transferred epithet, etc. which corresponds to the lakṣaṇā  (substitution) of Sanskrit poetics. The suppression of the literal meaning mukhyārthabhidhā is the main characteristics of laksanā. Laksanā is born of several other factors, as follows: lakṣaṇā based on mutual closeness between words (sāmpiya sambandh) , lakṣaṇā of similarity (sādrsya) , lakṣaṇā of association(samvāya), laksana of contrast (vaiparitya), lakṣaṇa of attribution (kriyāyoga). There are some other kinds of laksaṇā like rūdha lakṣaṇā  rūdha lakṣaṇā. Again there are two more kinds of laksanā:  śuddhā laksaṇā and gauṇī lakṣaṇā. Śuddhā can be subdividedinto four kinds: upadān lakṣaṇā, lakṣaṇā lakṣaṇā, sāropā   lakṣaṇā and sādhyavasāna  lakṣaṇā. Similarly gauṇī lakṣaṇā has two kinds: sāropā gauṇī lakṣaṇā and sādhyavasāna gauṇī laksaṇā

Kuntaka’s  vakrokti siddhānta( theory of oblique expression)also  holds that  kāvya is a play of the creative use of language.  He says that vakrokti consists in the delightful union of word and meaning which is characterized by the infusion of unique poetic art which is capable of affording pleasure to the sahṛdaya. Kuntaka’s basic postulates “can find many echoes in modern aesthetic theories.”5 The concept of vakrokti can be profitably considered in relation to the Western concept of oblique style or linguistic dislocation. It can also be placed beside certain formulation of the New critics and the Saussurean distinction of langue and parole and Chomsky’s concept of competence and performance. The classification of vakrata made byKuntaka is self-evident to establish the fact that kāvya  is the creative use of language. According to him, vakrokti is the oblique use of language and it operates at six levels : The first is  varṇa-vinyāsa-vakratā (phonetic obliquity or obliquity in arrangement of phonemes or consonants or syllables). It works at the level of phoneme when similar or identical phonemes or consonants are repeated at varying intervals, when consonants or phonemes are arranged without any interval, when  new consonants or phonemes are emplyed and when stops are combined with their homorganic nasals. It also includes alliteration and chime. The second type of vakrata is   pada-pūrvārddha-vakratā ( lexical obliquity). It is found in the base forms of substantatives. It’s sub-varieties are rūḍhi-vaicitraya-vakratā (obliquity of usage), paryāya-vakratā (obliquity of synonym), upacāra-vakratā (obliquity of transference), viśeṣana-vakratā  (obliquity of adjective),  saṁvrti-vakratā  (obliquity of concealment), vṛtti-vakratā (obliquity of indeclinable), kṛyā-vaicitra  vakratā (obliquity  of verb). The third type of vakratā is  pada-parārddha-vakratā (grammatical obliquity or obliquity in the inflectional forms of substantives) i.e. tense, case, case, number, person, voice, affix and particle and accordingly they are called kāla-vaicitrya-vakratā ’(obliquity of tense), kāraka-vakratā (obliquity of case)  saṁkhyā-vakratā (obliquity of number) puruṣa-vakratā (obliquity of person), upagraha- vakratā (obliquity of voice), upasarga- vakratā  (obliquity of affix), nipāta-vakratā (obliquity of particle). The fourth type of  vakratā is vākya-vakratā (sentential obliquity) or obliquity in a whole sentence admitting of a thousand varieties, including a whole lot of figures. It has mainly two sub-varieties: sahajā-vakratā  (natural obliquity)and ahārya vakratā  (imposed obliquity) . The fifth type of   vakratā is prakaraṇa -vakratā (episodic obliquity or obliquity in parts or episodes or incidents). It has bhāvapūrṇa sthiti vakratā (obliquity of emotional state), utapādya lāvaṇya vakratā (obliquity of modified source story), prakaraṇa upakārya-upakāraka bhāva vakratā  (obliquity of episodicrelationship), viśiṣṭha prakarṇa vakratā (obliquity of particular event and episode), aṅgīrasa niṣyandanikaṣa vakratā  (obliquity of dominant rasa), apradhāna prasaṅga  (obiquity of secondary episode),  prakaraṇāntara vakratā (device of play within play), sandhi viniveśa vakratā (obliquity of  juncture). The last type of vakratā  is prabandha-vakratā  (compositional obliquity or obliquity in the entire composition). Its sub-varieties are  rasāntara-vakratā (obliquity of changing the rasa), samāpana-vakratā (obliquity of winding up the story), kathā-viccheda-vakratā (obliquity of intending end), anuṣāngika-phal-vakratā (obliquity of contingent objective),   nāmakaraṇa-vakratā (obliquity of title), tulya-kathā-vakratā (obliquity of identical story). Thus the vakrokti theory works at the creative use of language at six levels: phonetic, lexical, grammatical, sentential, episodic or contextual and composition as a whole.

The  aucitya siddhānta( theory  of propriety) propounded by Acārya Ksemendra upholds the same view as has been already  held by other ācāryās. The  aucitya theory says that kāvya is a   placing together of different parts of language which are mutually agreeable or in harmony. It  again says  that it is the linguistic creativity that binds the parts of a piece of  literature together.  He enumerates twenty seven constituents of the language of literature, calling them  proprieties in the use of poetic language. Broadly they can be classified into seven categories:  bhāṣāucitya (propriety of language), guṇaucitya (propriety  of verbal organization), alaṁkāraucitya (propriety of  poetic figure), vyākaraṇaucitya (propriety of grammar),  rasaucitya (propriety of rasa),  kāvyapratihbāucitya (propriety of  creative genius). Here all the categories explicitly pronounce that kāvya is the creative use of language. Each of these first five categories include the various constituents of language in them.

Bhāṣāucitya (propriety of language) has pādaucitya (propriety of word and phrase). Vākyaucitya (propriety of sentence) has  prabandhārthaucitya (propriety of meaningin narrative). Guṇaucitya (propriety  of verbal organization) bears prasād (perspicuity or simplicity,  mādhurya (sweetness, melody) has ojas (elegance or emotionality). Alaṁkāraucitya ( propriety of  poetic figure) includes all proper use of figures of speech. Vyākaraṇaucitya (propriety of grammar) like Kuntaka’s pada-parārddha-vakratā  (grammatical obliquity) acts at  inflectional level of substantives i.e. tense, case, case, number, person, voice, affix and particle and accordingly they are called kāla-vaicitrayaucitya (propriety of tense), kārakaucitya (propriety of case), sāṁkhyaucitya  (propriety of  number), puruṣaucitya (propriety of  person), upagrahaucitya (propriety of  voice), upasargaucitya  (propriety of prefix) and nipātaucitya (propriety of particle). Samskrti-aucitya (propriety of culture) isbimpregnated with    deśaucitya ( propriety of place or language  with  reference to the place), kulaucitya (propriety of family or  language with   reference to status of the character), vrataucitya (propriety of custom or  language on different occasions with  reference to the prevailing customs and practices). Even the   last  category of  aucitya, kāvyapratihbāucitya (propriety of  creative genius)  focuses upon the creative use of language. It deals with   tattvaucitya (propriety of   truth), sattvaucitya (propriety of goodness), abhiprāyaucitya  (propriety of   purpose), svabhāvaucitya  (propriety of  nature),  sarasaṁgrahaucitya  (propriety of essence), pratibhāucitya  (propriety of  talent), awasthāucitya  (propriety of  age),  vicāraucitya   (propriety of  thought), nāmaucitya (propriety of  title), āśirvādaucitya  (propriety of  benediction).

Thus there is a conspicuous correspondence between the above mentioned formulations of  modern  literary theories of the west and those of   Sanskrit literary theories of India. Both Indian and western thinking show that literature embodies a significant aspect of human experience in the stylized linguistic form. It carves out of language a pattern  and its verbal substructure embodies a carefully modified linguistic system. It is much more structured and creative than the every day language. Literature is essentially innovative and it is its language that expresses the meaning. In both the thinking a certain obliqueness is the most distinguishing characteristic of literature.  The modern literary theories -- formalism, new criticism, stylistics, structuralism, post structuralism, ,deconstruction, discourse analysis, semiotics and dialogic criticism and Indian literary theories-- have similar pronouncements, though the former are not so exhaustive as the latter ones. Both refer to the very aspect of literary language.  The modern theories, though essentially interpretive, have evolved from Europe's 19th century interaction with Sanskrit philosophy, grammar and poetics. It is worth noting that Roman Jakobson, Trubetzkoy and de Saussure were Sanskritists. Saussure was  a professor of Sanskrit at Geneva and his published papers include work on Sanskrit poetics. The structural, formalist thinking and the linguistic turn of modern theories have their pedigree in Sanskrit thought. Despite differences in their priorities and approaches, the two treat the same linguistic phenomenon in literature. In western theories the creative use of language, with all its sophistication and over inclusiveness, suffers from certain theoretical loopholes. The Indian  literary theories, on the contrary, come off as more comprehensive  and more plausible account of the linguistic creativity in literature. They have viability and validity in modern situation. They are not only better suited to Indian context but are universally valid. In certain respects, Indian theories are more comprehensive and striking than those of the west. Unlike the western concept of creative use of language in literature, the Indian concept  pays due attention to the connoisseur’s reaction to a piece of literature. By erecting their theoretical edifice on the firm foundation of poetic activity, the Indian ācāryās have given a more convincing explanation of the role of the creative use of language in literature.

 

 

References

1. Geoffrey N Leech, A Linguistic Guide to English Poetry, 1969 and also Mick Short, “Literature and Language” in Encyclopedia of Literature and Criticism, ed. Martin Coyle and others, 1990

2. K Krishnaswamy, Studies in Indian Aesthetics and Criticism (Mysore, 1979)22.

3. Dhvanyāloka, I, 5-6

4 dvi-vidham caruttvam—svarupamatranistham, sangatanasritam catatra sabdanam svarupamatrakrtam carutvam sabdalamakarebhya,  sangatanasritam tu shabdagunebhya,
evam arthanam carutvam svarupamatranistham upmadibhayah, sangatanaparyavasitam tu arthagunebhya. Locana (KSRI ed.) 41

5. K Krishnaswamy, Introduction to Vakroktijivitam (Dharwar, 1977) xxxix.