Free English Language Essays - What is the role of “language play” in literature?
Introduction
It will be helpful to first examine what is understood by the term “language play”. Used experimentally, language is inextricably connected to play. It is intrinsically symbolic, adventurous, informative, and dynamic. As Marian Whitehead writes,
“Language and play share several characteristics:
both use symbols to stand for a range of ideas,
feelings and experiences;
both are reflections of human thinking
and also creators of new thoughts;
both are part of our genetic make-up.”
Terry Campbell identifies two major classifications of language play: playing with meaning and playing with sound. When teaching children, for example, literature that “plays with sounds” might well be very suitable. Not only do children delight in their perception that silly, babbling, nonsense sounds provide a sudden, surprising license to be childish and experimental, they also experience happy astonishment at their first encounter of a valid form of literature which is nevertheless not trying to be overtly didactic. Assumptions about the purpose of literature must be present in children’s minds from a very early age indeed, and books designed for the very young bear the responsibility of changing their minds about reading and writing from the outset. Naturally there is a didacticism about all literature for children, but perhaps nursery rhymes and nonsense poems, limericks, etc, provide a unique opportunity to learn things in an enjoyable way: a way easily facilitated by the young child’s mind already so keen to mimic and repeat and invent extraordinary sounds at every opportunity.
Outside of children’s literature, language play is rife- for example in the media, wherever a writer aims to make some point memorable or pithy. We find examples of language play in the alliteration of a headline, in the rhymes and jingles of advertisements and radio shows, in pop songs, slogans, magazine headers and TV presenters’ catchphrases. In short, whenever someone is trying to sell us something (even if it’s just an idea) we can count on them doing something surprising with language.
Perhaps less cynically, there is a fascination with language play stemming the post-modern movement in literature. Indeed, any author who has ever attempted a self-referentiality has employed a duplicity of meaning which can be characterised as play; in Campbell’s term, “play with meaning.”
Post-modernism quickly adopted a vocabulary of anti-enlightenment rhetoric, which it used to argue that rationality was neither so sure nor so clear as rationalists supposed, and that knowledge was inherently linked to time, place, social position and other factors from which an individual constructs their view of knowledge. In order to escape from constructed (assumed) knowledge, one must step outside it and critique it, ultimately deconstructing the asserted knowledge. Jacques Derrida argued that in order to defend against the inevitable self-deconstruction of knowledge, systems of power called hegemony would need to assert the possibility of an originary utterance, something Derrida dubbed the logos. The "privileging" of original utterance- first word- is called "logocentrism". So, from Derrida on, knowledge ceased to be rooted in particular utterances, or "texts", and the basis of all information was something more rootless, that couldn’t be traced to source but could be identified in and as the free play of discourse itself, an idea rooted in Wittgenstein's idea of a language game. Through its unique emphasis on the permission of free play within the context of conversation and discourse leads postmodernism to adopt the stance of irony, paradox, textual manipulation, reference and tropes. Postmodernism defines language’s function as its “play”; an important distinction that we should note being made between function and purpose- or means and ends. Language, from Dadaism onwards, has become something not lacking purpose, merely sidestepping the usual criteria of usefulness. Since it became self-aware, language need answer to no one but itself. In Derrida’s words,
“The study of the functioning of language, of its play, presupposes that the substance of meaning and, among other possible substances, that of sound, be placed in parenthesis. The unity of sound and of sense is indeed here, as I proposed above, the reassuring closing of plan.”
Similarly, according to Hjelmslev, economics and grammar are fallaciously and frequently compared, while semiotics on the Saussaurian model is overlooked, but presents a better explanation of language,
“An economic value is by definition a value with two faces: not only does it play the role of a constant vis-á-vis the concrete units of money, but it also itself plays the role of a variable vis-á-vis a fixed quantity of merchandise which serves it as a standard. In linguistics on the other hand there is nothing that corresponds to a standard. That is why the game of chess and not economic fact remains for Saussure the most faithful image of a grammar. The scheme of language is in the last analysis a game and nothing more.”
Derrida’s concept of play within language has however been vulnerable to considerable criticism. Derrida draws another false conclusion from this theory of Saussure. He believes that the arbitrary quality of sounds, letters, and meanings makes all meaning indeterminate or uncertain. According to the back cover of a collection of essays by Derrida titles Limited Inc, Derrida's "most controversial idea" is "linguistic meaning is fundamentally indeterminate." Derrida's conclusion here is self-contradictory and therefore false because, if linguistic meaning is fundamentally indeterminate, then so is the linguistic meaning of that statement. To say that meaning is indeterminable is like saying, "I cannot utter a word of English." It is silly intellectual nonsense that should be rejected by all thoughtful people.
Conclusions
In Against Deconstruction, John M. Ellis explains,
"Saussure had argued that meaning is not a matter of sounds being linked to concepts existing outside a given language but instead arises from specific contrasts between terms that are differentiated in specific ways." According to Ellis, Derrida takes Saussure's idea of contrasts and swaps in the word "play." "Play is no longer a matter of specific contrasts," Ellis notes, "it is 'limitless,' 'infinite,' and 'indefinite'; and thus meaning has become limitless, infinite, and indefinite."
If Ellis’s argument is true, then Derrida is indeed guilty of an illogical switch of categories, since he has substituted these words for Saussure's idea of contrasts. Arguably, switching like this is an informal logical fallacy which serves to make Derrida's argument logically invalid. "The meaning of one word does indeed depend on the meaning of many others," Ellis argues; "but to choose one word from a system is to employ all of the systematic contrasts with other words at that very moment -- the process of contrasting does not stretch out into the future" as Derrida's concept of play attempts to do. Thus the immediate context of a word in a sentence or paragraph, or the immediate context of a scene in a film or play, is generally used to determine its meaning. This is a rule of interpretation that is ignored by the occasional obfuscations of Derrida and the post-modern literarists, who privilege the unlikely, unexpected and unexplained above and beyond the direct and sensical. By ignoring this rule, they clearly show the inherent fallacies of their whole theory. Hence “language play” in literature, taken to extremes, can often suffer from its own boisterous enthusiasm; although the irresistible quality of language play is essential in the education of children, it can be fatally addictive to adults, who turn to it in desperation, drawn by the promise of escape from the oppressive logic of grammar.
REFERENCES and useful sources
Arnold, J. (1999). Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. London: Granada.
Butzkamm, W. (1980). Verbal play and pattern practice. In Felix, S. (Ed.) Second language development: Trends and issues, 233-48. Tubingen: Gunther Narr.
Coleman, J. (1967). Learning through games. In Bruner, J., Jolly, A. and Sylva, K. (Eds.), (1976). Play: It’s role in development and evolution (pp. 461-463). New York: Penguin Books.
Cook, G. (2000). Language play, language learning. New York: Oxford University Press.
Crookes, G. and Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda, Language Learning, 41 (4), 469-512.
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam.
Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. New York: Putnam.
Derrida, Of Grammatology, US: John Hopkins University Press (1974) Chapter Two
Derrida, Jacques. Limited Inc. Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1988. -----. Positions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Dornyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualising motivation in foreign language classrooms. Language Learning, 40(1), 45-78.
Ellis, John M. Against Deconstructionism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.
Graddol, David, (1994) Describing Language, Chapter 7 , section 7.4 UK: Open University Press
Hawkes, Terence. Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley: University of Califonria Press, 1977.
Hansen, G. (1999). Learning by heart: a Lozanov perspective. In Arnold, J. (Eds.), Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. Boston: Beacon Press.
Lantolf, J. (2001). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maybin, Janet, Mercer Neil (1996). Using English: from Conversation to canon (English Language: Past, Present & Future S.) UK: Routledge
Medina, S. (1993). The effect of music on second language vocabulary acquisition. National Network for Early Language Learning, 6 (3). Retrieved October 24, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.geocities.com/eslmusic/articles/article01.html.
Ratner, C. (2000). A cultural-psychological analysis of emotions. Culture and Psychology, 6, pp. 5-39. Retrieved November 6, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2/emotion.htm
Rosenbach, M. (1988). Teaching methodology: A child-centered approach. In Benya, R. & Muller, K. (eds.), Children and languages: Research, practice, and rationale for the early grades. New York: National Council on Foreign Language and International Studies.
Santos, S. (1988). Bilingual Language Arts through Music. In Benya, R. & Muller, K. (eds.), Children and languages: Research, practice, and rationale for the early grades. New York: National Council on Foreign Language and International Studies.
Schumann, J. (1990). The role of amygdala as a mediator of acculturation and cognition in second language acquisition. In Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics 1990: 169-176. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Sturrock, John, ed. Structuralism and Since: From Levi-Strauss to Derrida. NY: Oxford University Press, 1981.
Sullivan, P. (2001). Playfulness as mediation in communicative language teaching in a Vietnamese classroom. In Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sylva, K., Bruner, J. and Genova, P. (1974). The role of play in problem-solving of children 3-5 years old. In Bruner, J., Jolly, A. and Sylva, K. (Eds.), (1976). Play: It’s role in development and evolution (pp. 244-257). New York: Penguin Books.
Vale, D. and Feunteun, A. (1995). Teaching children English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum. Awareness, autonomy, and authenticity. London: Longman.
Vygotsky, L. (1933). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. In Bruner, J., Jolly, A. and Sylva, K. (Eds.), (1976). Play: It’s role in development and evolution (pp. 461-463). New York: Penguin Books.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whitehead, Marian in Terry Campbell’s “Literature and Language Play” available online here http://www.nipissingu.ca/education/terryc/Literature_and_Language_Play.ppt
