Assignment Literary Theory

Overview of Jakobson’s functions of language Jacobson’s model of the functions of language distinguishes six elements, or factors of communication, that are necessary for communication to occur: (1) context, (2) addresser (sender), (3) addressee (receiver), (4) contact, (5) common code and (6) message.

Each factor is the focal point of a relation, or function that operates between the message and the factor. The functions are the following, in order: (1) referential ("The Earth is round"), (2) emotive ("Yuck!"), (3) conative ("Come here"), (4) phatic ("Hello?"), (5) metalingual ("What do you mean by 'krill'?"), and (6) poetic ("Smurf").

1

Analysis In the poem Archeology, there are two discourses. Each discourse would be analysed separately. The first discourse is a one-side conversation between an archeologist as the ‘I’ figure (addresser) and a skeleton as the addressee. The message is about the archeologist’s struggle to 1 M.A.R Habib, 2005. Chapter 23 Formalism- Jakobson.

1|Page

decode/understand the skeleton. Hereby the ideal context would be an archeological site. The contact is psychological as the archeologist is speaking to a non-living entity. The code adopted varies considerably throughout the poem. The predominant functions in this discourse are emotive and poetic because of the psychological nature of the discourse. Hereby the whole conversation is a product of the archeologist’s imagination. The archeologist/addresser uses a casual and routine-like code when she2 first encounters the skeleton/addressee: ‘well, my poor man’. This reflects a certain confidence and pride in her ability to decode/understand the skeleton. She plays on the idea of being capable of understanding everything about the skeleton practically out of nothing. ‘I no longer require’, ‘or even less than that’, ‘show me your nothing’, ‘keep your funny piece of paper…’ She uses a boastful and arrogant code to insist on this aspect. However, she ends up asking for concrete materials overtly: ‘show me your little poem’. This indicates that she might never understand everything about the skeleton because archeology has its own limitations. Throughout the poem, the archeologist hyperbolizes archeology as a magical recovery of data. However, archeology does need prime materials to better examine sites. The more the material available the better it would have been for understanding the skeleton. This places the imaginative hyperbolized poetic world of the addresser far from the reality of archeology’s limitations. The casual ending ‘all I need for my ends…’ reflects the circularity and unsettled issue of the poem. The addresser is trapped in this world having a one-sided conversation with an addressee she pretends to be capable of understanding. Additionally the abrupt ending of the poem marks the return to reality or consciousness for the addresser. It is a reality whereby she has not yet deciphered or understood the skeleton. Consequently the psychological contact between the addresser and addressee was broken ensuring a discontinuation of the one-sided conversation. The silence of the skeleton dictates the flow of this one-sided conversation. The whole discourse can also be seen as a struggle of the addresser to be able to understand the language of her 2 Lanser's rule: In the absence of any text-internal clues as to the narrator's sex, use the pronoun appropriate to the author's sex; i.e., assume that the narrator is male if the author is male, and that the narrator is female if the author is female, respectively. (Lanser 1981: 166-68; Lanser 1992: ch. 1; Lanser 1995). This rule enhances the analysis of Jakobson functions of language in the poem as the addresser and addressee are given more concrete existence by the use of pronouns.

2|Page

addressee. The addresser masks her growing frustration of being unable to understand her addressee by hyperbolizing her account of her expertise. The boastful code adopted in notably ‘I no longer need….’ cleverly disguise the addresser’s irritation. Additionally in stanza four, she does not merely state her methodology of research in the most extravagant manner but she also indirectly does a re-evaluation of her methodology. This is the first step she takes in re-assessing her expertise to understand her addressee. Just afterwards the addresser accepts another defeat in her current ability by saying: ‘(and you can’t be sure that I will).’ Her frustration of being unable to communicate with her addressee goes to the extent of making her completely lose confidence in her own abilities. She attains the highest point of irritation and desperation when she directly asks her addressee to ‘show me your little poem’. Hereby the addresser asks the addressee directly to help her in understanding his language. Yet, the addresser again adopts her boastful and somewhat hopeful code in the last stanza. This forces us to consider another perspective whereby an overt-talkative addresser has encountered a covert-shy addressee. The overt-talkative addresser does not give her covert-shy addressee the opportunity to talk and even talks for her addressee. Additionally it seems that it is now after having completed her long monologue that the addresser is really going to investigate and examine the addressee. Consequently the aftermath of the poem announces a reversal of roles whereby addresser will become addressee and addressee will become addresser. The skeleton will now start revealing his secrets to the archeologist. In this discourse, the addresser enhances the direct and aggressive tone of his exchange by injecting the poem with several imperatives: ‘show me your whatever’, ‘you couldn’t have known then’, ‘show me your nothing’, ‘show me your little poem’. The addresser starts releasing the emotive nature of this poem. As an addresser, the archeologist exerts high emotive pressure on the skeleton/addressee. The addressees are blocked into intense cognitive moments wherein their voices and desires are contained. The physical shifts and haphazard structure of the verses accompany the boastful emotive note of this discourse. The fact that this whole discourse is psychologically imagined by the addresser gives the latter the poetical license. Hereby the discourse is highly poetic according to the whims of the addresser. This also reflects that the addresser uses the emotive function to further denigrate the contemporary addressee. While in the case of the skeleton, it is the eruption of a dormant passion for poetry that the addresser experiences. The silence of both the addressees depicts the conotive aspect whereby silence acts as a link between the addressers and addressees. This silence gives the addressers the opportunity 3|Page

to continue their discourses. The referential aspect generated would refer to some factual and realistic fact about archeology that the addressers manage to share especially archeological jargons. The referential part adds a degree of realism and credibility to the addressers discourse.

The second discourse is still a one-sided conversation. This time the ‘I’ figure as the addresser is the personification of the archeological domain and the addressee is the contemporary reader. The message is about the evolution and progress of archeology. The contact is through the use of referents ‘I’ and ‘you’. The code also varies significantly throughout the poem. The predominant functions in this discourse are referent and connotative because of the prose-like and explicatory nature of this discourse. In the first stanza, the ‘I’ figure takes an intellectual and casual code by preparing to explain about the progress of archeology. The intellectual code shows the addresser as being innocent almost grateful to be given the opportunity to explain the progress of archeology to his addressee. This puts the contemporary reader at ease and off-guard. However, the discourse turns out to be a displeasing experience for the contemporary reader as various negative underpinnings emerge from the addresser’s way of explaining. The addresser uses exaggerated and satirical descriptions to show her addressee as being a contemporary ignorant addressee. This is complemented by a boastful and arrogant code. It reflects the addresser’s need to show her intelligence and presumed ability to the contemporary reader. Satire is generated when the addresser gradually becomes intimidating and insulting towards the contemporary addressee. 4|Page

The addresser threatens to enter the personal life of the contemporary addressee: ‘if I want to…’ The powerfulness of archeological progress undermines the very existence of the addressee. Moreover the addresser uses contemporary objects like ‘scrap of engine’, ‘picture tube’s neck’, ‘cable’, ‘an airport’, ‘a highway’, ‘a forest’ as examples to explain processes of excavation in archeology. This hints towards the addresser’s perception that the contemporary addressee is awfully ignorant. Hereby, the addresser over-simplifies the explanation for the contemporary addressee. Satire reaches its highest point when the addresser talks about exhuming ‘a forest and a highway, an airport, baseness, tenderness, a missing home.’ The contemporary addressee is clearly targeted by the addresser who mocks contemporary technologies by referring to them as already dead and buried sites. Lastly the addresser directly attacks the intellect of the contemporary addressee with ‘show me your little poem’ and ‘keep your ‘funny piece of paper’. The addresser cleverly succeeds in both showing how her addressee is ignorant and how much archeology has progressed over these years.

Bearing in mind that the contemporary addressee is made the object of study in this discourse, this can give an entirely new perspective to the poem. The addresser threatens to enter the private life of the reader: ‘I’ll peer down the throat of your silence; I’ll read your views from the sockets of your eyes.’ It is not only the personal life that the addresser threatens to penetrate but also something as private as memory, emotions and thoughts. Hence the addresser takes a quasiaggressive and intimidating code towards the contemporary addressee. For the first time the evolution of archeology seems to be disadvantageous and dangerous to the point of harming the privacy of the contemporary addressee. The addresser presents the archeological progress as threatening, arrogant and boastful and altogether succeeds in germinating the seed of doubt in the reader’s mind towards archeological progress. Thus the addresser seems to be manipulative and calculative in nature as her true aim was not to make the addressee aware of archeological progress but to make the addressee despise archeological progress. Archeological progress is described as something inhuman and pervert in nature which penetrates the emotions and privacy of the contemporary addressee. This contributes to the more general debate of technological progress versus human privacy. Consequently by overtly ‘supporting’ technological progress in archeology the addresser achieves her intended covert aim of making her contemporary addressee to disapprove of technological progress in archeology. 5|Page

The use of contemporary terms like ‘scrap of engine’, ‘inch of cable’, ‘a forest’, ‘a highway’ and the direct addressee being the contemporary addressee forces yet another interpretation of this discourse. The addresser can be seen as talking about the progress of archeology in a distant future. From this perspective, the addresser is seen as excavating the present life of the contemporary addressee a thousand years later in a distant future. This in a way justifies the use of these contemporary terms. The structure of the poem is not rigid and does not conform to any specific poetic decorum. The poetic structure is nearly experimental with varying number of verses in each stanzaic block. This experimental and quasi-open structure of the poem complements the futuristic subject matter of the poem. Moreover the exaggerated description of the progress made by archeology harmonises with the fictional and futuristic element that such a progress might actually never occur. One clear instance is when archeology is seen as having progressed to the extent of being able to excavate emotions and memories. Therefore the message of the addresser becomes about a presumed progress of archeology in a distant future. Conclusively, Roman Jakobson’s functions of language help to better understand and appreciate this poem. The functions of language acts as an intricate mechanism which holds the poem together. The two addressers and the two addressees convey a myriad of messages in specific contexts and various codes. This creates a poem withholding several discourses that may be unraveled with closer analysis by applying Jakobson’s theory.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 6|Page

Lanser, Susan Sniader. 1981. The Narrative Act: Point of View in Prose Fiction. Princeton: Princeton UP.

7|Page