Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics

Problems in the Study of Language and Literature

Author(s): R. Jakobson, Ju. Tynjanov and H. Eagle
Source: Poetics Today, Vol. 2, No. 1a, Roman Jakobson: Language and Poetry (Autumn, 1980),
pp. 29-31
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1772349 .
Accessed: 18/11/2014 02:54

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.

Duke University Press and Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Poetics Today.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 141.35.29.70 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:54:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PROBLEMS IN THE STUDY OF
LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE*

R. JAKOBSON AND JU. TYNJANOV

1. The immediate problems facingRussian literaryand linguisticscience

demand a precise theoreticalplatform.They requirea firmdissociationfrom
the increasingmechanistictendencyto paste togethermechanicallythe new
methodologyand old obsolete methods;theynecessitatea determinedrefusal
of the contrabandofferof naive psychologism and othermethodologicalhand-
me-downsin the guise of new terminology.
Furthermore,academic eclecticismand pedantic"formalism"- whichre-
places analysisby terminology and the classificationof phenomena- and the
repeated attempts to shiftliteraryand studies
linguistic froma systematic
science to episodic and anecdotal genresshould be rejected.
2. The historyof literature(art), being simultaneouswith other historical
series, is characterized,as is each of these series,by an involvedcomplexof
specificstructurallaws. Withoutan elucidationof theselaws, it is impossibleto
establishin a scientificmannerthe correlationbetweenthe literaryseriesand
other historicalseries.
3. The evolution of literaturecannot be understooduntilthe evolutionary
problemceases to be obscuredby questionsabout episodic,nonsystemic gene-
sis, whetherliterary(forexample,so-called"literaryinfluences")or extraliter-
ary. The literaryand extraliterary
materialused in literature
maybe introduced
into the orbit of scientificinvestigationonly when it is consideredfroma
functionalpointof view.
4. The sharp oppositionof synchronic(static) and diachroniccross sections
has recentlybecome a fruitful
workinghypothesis,both forlinguistics and for
* Writtenin Russian
duringJurij Tynjanov's visit to Prague in the winterof 1928 (cf. R.
Jakobson, SW V, pp. 560ff.). The presentEnglish translationby H. Eagle was firstpublished
in L. Matejka and K. Pomorska, eds., Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalistand Structuralist
Views, (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1971), 79-81. To be publishedin Selected WritingsIII
(Mouton). [See Editors' note.l
? Poetics Today, Vol. 2:1a (1980), 29-31

This content downloaded from 141.35.29.70 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:54:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30 JAKOBSON& TYNJANOV

historyof literature,inasmuchas it has demonstratedthatlanguage,as well as

literature,has a systemiccharacterat each individualmomentof itsexistence.
At the presenttime, the achievementsof the synchronic conceptforceus to
reconsiderthe principlesof diachronyas well. The idea of a mechanicalag-
glomerationof material,havingbeen replaced by the conceptof a systemor
structurein the realmof synchronic study,underwenta corresponding replace-
mentin the realmof diachronicstudyas well. The historyof a systemis in turn
a system.Pure synchronism now proves to be an illusion:everysynchronic
systemhas itspast and itsfutureas inseparablestructural elementsofthesystem:
(a) archaism as a factof style;the and
linguistic background
literary recognized
as the rejected old-fashionedstyle; (b) the tendencytoward innovationin
language and literaturerecognizedas a renewalof the system.
The opposition between synchronyand diachronywas an oppositionbe-
tween the concept of systemand the concept of evolution;thus it loses its
importancein principleas soon as we recognizethateverysystemnecessarily
existsas an evolution,whereas,on theotherhand,evolutionis inescapablyof a
systemicnature.
5. The concept of a synchronicliterarysystemdoes not coincide withthe
naivelyenvisagedconceptof a chronologicalepoch, sincetheformerembraces
not onlyworksof artwhichare close to each otherin timebutalso workswhich
are drawn into the orbit of the systemfromforeignliteraturesor previous
epochs. An indifferent cataloguingof coexistingphenomenais not sufficient;
what is importantis theirhierarchicalsignificanceforthe givenepoch.
6. The assertionof two differing concepts- la langueand la parole - and
the analysis of the relationshipbetween them(the Geneva school) has been
exceedinglyfruitful forlinguisticscience. The principlesinvolvedin relating
these two categories(i.e., the existingnormand the individualutterances)as
applied to literaturemust be elaborated. In this lattercase, the individual
utterancecannot be consideredwithoutreferenceto the existingcomplexof
norms. (The investigator,in isolatingthe formerfromthe latter,inescapably
deforms the systemof artisticvalues under consideration,thus losing the
possibilityof establishingits immanentlaws.)
7. An analysis of the structurallaws of language and literatureand their
evolution inevitablyleads to the establishmentof a limitedseries of actually
existingstructural
types(and, correspondingly,of typesof structural
evolution).
8. A disclosureof theimmanentlawsofthehistory ofliterature(and language)
allows us to determinethe characterof each specificchange in literary(and
linguistic)systems.However, these laws do not allow us to explainthe tempo
of evolutionor thechosenpathof evolutionwhenseveral,theoretically possible,
evolutionarypaths are given.This is owingto the factthatthe immanentlaws
of literary(and, corresponding,linguistic)evolutionforman indeterminate
equation; althoughtheyadmitonlya limitednumberofpossiblesolutions,they
do not necessarilyspecifya unique solution.The questionof a specificchoice

This content downloaded from 141.35.29.70 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:54:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 PROBLEMS IN STUDY OF LANGUAGE / LITERATURE 31

of path, or at least of the dominant,can be solved onlythroughan analysisof

the correlationbetween the literaryseries and other historicalseries. This
correlation(a systemof systems)has its own structurallaws, whichmustbe
submittedto investigation.It would be methodologically fatalto considerthe
correlationof systemswithouttakinginto accountthe immanentlaws of each
system.

EDITORS' NOTE
JurijTynjanov, theSoviet of poetryand historical
theoretician
("Formalist") poetics,
visitedPragueinDecemberof 1928.Thismanifestowaspublished inMoscowinNovyj
LEF ["The NewLEF"] 1928,No. 12,pp. 36-37. LEF=the LeftFrontofArt,wasthe
journal of the Russian Futurists,who had close personaland ideologicalties withthe
Russian Formalistscholars.The theseswere prefacedby the followingeditorial(trans-
lated by B.H.):

LEF presentsto its readersthe followingtheseson the modernstudyof language

and literature,formulatedby Roman Jakobsonand JurijTynjanov.
The old science separated, in principle,theoreticalfromhistoricaldisciplines.
The studyof literaturewas divided betweenpoetics and literaryhistory.Poetics
describedconstructive elementsof a workof literature in isolationfromitsoverall
constructionand fromthe processof literaryevolution.Historyof literature regis-
tered in a chronologicalorder factsof biography,literatureand culturalhistory
collected at random.
A similardivisionof areas of researchexistedin lingustics, e.g., phoneticswas a
purelydescriptivediscipline,classifying sound elementswithoutrecourseto their
functionalvalues in the generalsystemof language.
The modernscienceof languageand literature abolishesthisoppositionbetween
theoryand history,and assumesthata theoreticalanalysisis impossiblewithouta
considerationof thedialecticsof history(theflowand changeofliterary and linguistic
values) and vice versa - historical
researchcannotbe fruitful withouta theoretical
recognitionof the specificaspectsof its material.
Instead of the questionposed by the old science"why?"we findin the forefront
the question"what for?"(the problemof functionality). Researchdeals notmerely
withconstructivefunctions(functionsof elementsconstituting a literaryfact),and
not onlywithimmanentliteraryfunctions of variousgenres,butalso withthesocial
functionof the literaryseriesin variousperiods.
Thus the scienceof languageand literaturemovesfromthecategoryofhistorical
disciplinesto the categoryof social, or sociologicaldisciplines.
The Editors

This content downloaded from 141.35.29.70 on Tue, 18 Nov 2014 02:54:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions