UNI-WISSEN Klett Lerntrainingconstituents) This model of literary communication offers a simplified represen- oer) a A Gere) on of the mont important elements ad opens involved in he 8 riteria for a Definition of Literature cf the comm ornmurieston proces An eur (ese) produces leary eee ee : Se text (message) which is simultaneously the material basis or Generations of emany Cheon have cmempred wo one oe ae ‘medium (channel) via which the message reaches the recipient or i ith th the he it to this day hot! literature? reader (addressee). If the addressee is to understand the text, he ‘along with countless others; however, it remains to vy hotly’ degre. el yet won Serato? towers weqgons a i= vara theo exwcna lngpnge ond eas ponte co dpe And ye bn word tae snow everyone od re gaan in oll manna af eduction and ery conte Act orate references to the historia! or conteraperry realy (on- sith travel andchloren’s Hterature, andsoon. However although Ene, ine these okwwsien ats veo teagan of reds nithavelondchlren tata andegon, However though reaiationy the term ‘literature’, such subjective notions are obviously of lim- [Batagee) This mode of terary communication facilitate the task show: ied we when attempting t Selimit tre seape ofan entire disc UiaaRe AS) Tg re ference between Iteratre asa textual or symbole 9s: pln, Inorderto reach an adequate definition othe subjectmat esl | tet ond Meroture ova soll system. Literature can be regarded Uerfilterary studs, we need felabe ceria whieh enable usto and sat oa enero ext which are cstfid as lterary’ ths to tiferentte between Iterary and nom-iteary texts We need ot, that fulment of certain ertera Gee below), Considered fom however concer ourselves here wth defining the een’ of it such a perspective, lerature ls understood oso symboic tem, Crane, nor wi reaching dine conclusions about whet It whieh characterised by certain eesti features and fers erature“, What we nee! sa viable Working definition o the poe vldirarmmny mrs} femurs mee op om "omic egal, academic, andso on), The approaches ond methods Anexaminaton of definitions in encyclopaedia and implied de (gd pat esta lye mercedes Sollee alae One oe initions in literary histories demonstrates that a fundamental dis- narrow: cemed with the investigation of hterature as a symbolic system, Uinaion can be made between troad and narrow delaions cf (aeons However the extended social sphere ofthe iteary institutions oan the term (see Grates 1981). ‘Literature’ in the broadest sense lof terarare tise be the subject of investigation, asa Soll system which Is i et odo composed not merely of literary texts, but also of a variety of Seanad ‘printed works. However, even @ definition of th agents, roles and institutions. breadth (on which, despite the obvious practical problems relating BERGEN The study of Anglo-American erature thus encompasses an to ls applcauon, most English lary hires are based Fak of | cordially boed fl, including not only the interpretation ‘iclude Sal ltersures A nage number ot narrower deiions peer pgp pment Sem tis exis although they howe Temarhable lack of consensus bolle ard as a octal sstom. tis concemed on the one hand with conceming the precse ature of iteratue’ They generelly only dhedoalaatet of Doodee aeoads and setuoiec? ecad aa- gnaleclareoneaty often ies Hasna ta ceowroece™ peter heahayee—raye gm ogery ee an ene Yet the problem remains that, inorder teach a satisfactory defn (URS a a eee area eee eee tion of ‘literature’, concrete characteristics and criteria that can Tephlesofauthors the development ofthe book rade, the med ton of cae; concrete character ond iia that an and censorship as wel ot with the reeaption and etiam of must be identified. A good deal oink has been spit nthe attempt tex which are weiten tn Eglsh, and porteulaly onthe analy to deine tha ecarnna af Woary tala owes again ete texts which ore wnten In English, and parclanl on the analy Bicones about the pe uae sd by dfntin of te ldo rary sue, then, we must fst labo. . fate a working definion of eature and cay what kind wf Thequestion of what onstitutesthelterarnss of alterary work Fata? {ent cam be csi a ear. Uecone all ie moe dificult when one considers that te term (Curae, ‘iterature’ has always been subject to historical change and that itcan vary considerably from one cultural context to the next. As a result, there can be no perennially valid answer to the question “4 a 1 LUterary Studies: Subject Matter, Major Issues and Research Domains G criteria for Definition of Literature 15Normative ws. descrip: tive defink tions Literature ‘and reality Mimesis vs. <4 of what literature i, ‘in essence’. The historical and cultural vari- ability of the term ‘literature’ becomes particularly evident when ‘we consider the historical transition from the orally mediated lit- erature, which is still common in many areas of the former British Empire, to the written word, and to other, more modern media (for example, cinematic adaptations of novels). As a result of these changes in medium we are constantly being confronted with new ‘texts’, such as radio plays and screenplays, which introduce yet more nuances to the term ‘literature’. To attempt to discuss all, historical varieties of ‘literature’ in the course of a short introduc- tion would, of course, be impossible. However, itis important to familiarise oneself with at least the most important criteria which, have been applied in previous attempts to distinguish ‘literature’ from other forms of texts. Scholars of literature generally agree that definitions based on particular normative or qualitative criteria (which differentiate, for example, between ‘high-brow’ and ‘low-brow’ literature) are problematic, not least because such criteria do not stand up to objective scrutiny. Normative aesthetic or value-based definitions of ‘literature’ are therefore usually avoided nowadays. There is also a general consensus that any differentiation between literary and non-literary texts should follow descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) criteria, and base itself on certain textual and con- textual factors. ‘Two central criteria for differentiating between literary (in the nar- row sense) and non-literary texts have traditionally been the spe- cific way in which literature positions itself in relation to reality, and, in particular, the view that literature makes no claim to con vvey or represent ‘facts’. In contrast to ‘referential’ texts, then, liter- ary texts make no pretence of referring directly and explicitly to reality, nor of making ‘factual’ statements about this reality. Whereas we, quite reasonably, expect a travel guide to give us reliable information about a country or town, we do not have the same expectations of a play or a novel. Literary texts may well incorporate many general or even quite specific references to a contextual ‘reality’ (for example, to general knowledge or to cer- ‘tain existing places, people and events), but they generally exhibit ‘a more relaxed relationship to factual reality. Literary theory has long been concerned with the central question Of the relationship between the imaginative world evoked by a Literary text, and reality. The term ‘mimesis’ (Greek for ‘imita- tion’), which has been a concept central to aesthetics since Antig- tity, considers literature’s relationship to reality to be grounded in lts imitation of the real world. The modern view, however, is that literary texts do not merely imitate extra-literary contexts; instead, Literary Studi Subject Matter, Major Issues and Research Domains cllty and literary texts are in dynamic interplay. The term ‘poe- si (Greek for the making’), on the other hand, emphasizes that literature creates independent models of reality with specifically literary tools. The question of the relationship between literature ‘and reality i thus superseded by the question of how literary texts transform the knowledge, the experiences, as well as the values id norms of the period in which they have thelr genesis. The different claims made by literary and non-literary texts in lerms of the ‘truthfulness’ of their content or their proximity to reality’ lead on to a further important criterion for the differen- liation between the two: the ‘ficionality’ of literary texts. This 1m, derived from Latin (from fingere, meaning ‘to form, invent, feign’) refers to the fabricated or imaginative nature of the worlds presented in literary texts. The places and characters that feature In such texts are therefore described as ‘fictional’ and/or ‘fictive’ Fictionality is nowadays no longer considered to be a feature of {he text itsetf, but rathera set of social conventions or consensually recognised rules concerning how certain texts should be ‘approached, Agents in the literary system, therefore, conform to this so-called ‘aesthetic convention’, which holds that literary lexts should be judged notin terms of ‘true’ versus false’ or ‘useful versus ‘useless’, but rather according to specific aesthetic criteria. When acting in accordance with this aesthetic convention, indi- vidualsare prepared to abandon, orratherto ‘suspend’, the expec- lations of factual accuracy with which they generally approach non-fictional texts, The English Romanticpoet Sauet Tavon Cour ocr described this attitude of mind, whereby the reader allows him: or herself to be transported to an invented world in the full knowledge that the literary text will supply no ‘true’ information about reality, as a ‘willing suspension of disbelie?. Whether a reader classifies a text as fictional or non-fictional is dependent to a large degree on the signals given by the text itself. Rather than being inherently fictional, a literary text presents liself as such by giving certain signals. By ‘signals’ or ‘indicators’ of fictionality, we mean all those signs which indicate to the reader that the world presented within the text is fabricated, and that it Is to be read according to the rules of the aesthetic convention. Non-fictional texts, conversely, incorporate contrasting indica: tots, which can be described as ‘reality signals’. Signals for fiction- ality, which can occur with varying degrees of frequency and con- centration and frequently allow diverse interpretations, aresubject \w historical change and to a variety of conventions. There are certain textual features which play an important role ignolling fictionality and in constituting the different modes criteria fora Definition of Literature Fictionality The aesthetic convention Signals for fictionality 7