#Aristotle_s_theory_of_imitation

Aristotle did not invent the term “imitation”. Plato was the first to use the word in relation with poetry, but Aristotle breathed into it a new definite meaning. So poetic imitation is no longer considered mimicry, but is regarded as an act of imaginative creation by which the poet, drawing his material from the phenomenal world, makes something new out of it.

In Aristotle's view, principle of imitation unites poetry with other fine arts and is the common basis of all the fine arts. It thus differentiates the fine arts from the other category of arts. While Plato equated poetry with painting, Aristotle equates it with music. It is no longer a servile depiction of the appearance of things, but it becomes a representation of the passions and emotions of men which are also imitated by music. Thus Aristotle by his theory enlarged the scope of imitation. The poet imitates not the surface of things but the reality embedded within. In the very first chapter of the Poetic, Aristotle says:

“Epic poetry and Tragedy, Comedy also and Dithyrambic poetry, as also the music of the flute and the lyre in most of their forms, are in their general conception modes of imitation. They differ however, from one another in three respects – their medium, the objects and the manner or mode of imitation, being in each case distinct.”

The medium of the poet and the painter are different. One imitates through form and colour, and the other through language, rhythm and harmony. The musician imitates through rhythm and harmony. Thus, poetry is more akin to music. Further, the manner of a poet may be purely narrative, as in the Epic, or depiction through action, as in drama. Even dramatic poetry is differentiated into tragedy and comedy accordingly as it imitates man as better or worse.

Aristotle says that the objects of poetic imitation are “men in action”. The poet represents men as worse than they are. He can represent men better than in real life based on material supplied by history and legend rather than by any living figure. The poet selects and orders his material and recreates reality. He brings order out of Chaos. The irrational or accidental is removed and attention is focused on the lasting and the significant. Thus he gives a truth of an ideal kind. His mind is not tied to reality:

“It is not the function of the poet to relate what has happened but what may happen – according to the laws of probability or necessity.”

History tells us what actually happened; poetry what may happen. Poetry tends to express the universal, history the particular. In this way, he exhibits the superiority of poetry over history. The poet freed from the tyranny of facts, takes a larger or general view of things, represents the universal in the particular and so shares the philosopher’s quest for ultimate truth. He thus equates poetry with philosophy and shows that both are means to a higher truth. By the word ‘universal’ Aristotle signifies:

“How a person of a certain nature or type will, on a particular occasion, speak or act, according to the law of probability or necessity.”

The poet constantly rises from the particular to the general. He studies the particular and devises principles of general application. He exceeds the limits of life without violating the essential laws of human nature.

Elsewhere Aristotle says, “Art imitates Nature”. By ‘Nature’ he does not mean the outer world of created things but “the creative force, the productive principle of the universe.” Art reproduce mainly an inward process, a physical energy working outwards, deeds, incidents, situation, being included under it so far as these spring from an inward, act of will, or draw some activity of thought or feeling. He renders men, “as they ought to be”.

The poet imitates the creative process of nature, but the objects are “men in action”. Now the ‘action’ may be ‘external’ or ‘internal’. It may be the action within the soul caused by all that

#Tragedy_Fate_And_Hamartia:

One major element of tragic fate is hamartia. One major element of hamartia is often hubris.

#Hamartia

The most common definition of tragic hamartia is "tragic flaw", but we need to be careful with this term and understand what the Greeks meant by "flaw" and how it relates to a broadly defined sense of "fate":  Through hamartia, the tragic hero visits his own fate upon him or herself.  In this way, "fate" is transformed from some metaphysical concept -- "the will of the gods," "the divine order of the cosmos" etc. -- to one in which we see our fates as tied to inherent elements of our selves, of our psyches, our own personal characteristics, that ordain our destinies.

To put it in a simplistic way, hamartia means "no matter where you go, there you are";  you cannot escape your own personality; there are elements of our selves from which we simply cannot escape, and, for the Greeks, these elements are "inherited" and will sometimes determine the course of our lives.

This suggests we might see hamartia as "layered", like an onion:  on the surface, fate seems beyond one's control and "the will of the gods", but dig deeper and we find we will our own fates through our own personalities and character traits, but dig deeper still and we find our character traits were in turn formed largely by luck or inherited via the choices others made:  you did not choose your parents; you did not choose your DNA; you did not choose what continent you were born on or in what century you found yourself....  You did not choose your skin color or how others perceive that color;  you did not choose to be born, say, to a parent who would be killed in war or to be born to one who inherited tens of millions of dollars and sent you to the best private schools....  In short, fate determines your character, and your character then determines your fate.

Consider how much of your own life was determined by:

i) #Genetics_and_Personality:  Most obviously your gender was determined by your genetics, not some choice you made, and the fact of you genetics will have a profound influence on how your life unfolds and what kinds of choices are available to you. Increasingly psychologists believe that deep elements of our characters/personalities are coded in our DNA, including things such as intelligence, disposition, alcoholism, diabetes, cancer….

ii) #Cultural_Context: Did you choose, before you were born, to be born in the USA in the 20th century?  Did Clytemnestra choose to be born in Mycenaean Greece?  Of course not, so how we are treated (based on our gender, or race, or body size) is determined by culture, not choice. A child born in Saudi Arabia is highly unlikely to be raised a Christian, and a child born in Alabama is highly unlikely to be raised a Muslim.  A white man born in the USA 18 years ago faces an entirely different set of contexts from a black woman born in the USA the same year, not to mention 50 years ago.  So our genetics combines with cultural influence to make us who we are.
iii) Choices:  who your father and mother chose to marry, or who your grandparents chose to marry, what church they chose to attend, where they chose to live, whether or not your ancestors chose to immigrate to America…which side of 110th st or Central Park you were born in, whether you were born North or South of the Mexico-United States border….
iv) Behavioral Conditioning: Of course whatever elements are not coded into your DNA must be given to you by your experiences, the way you were raised and what you observed in your parents.  As they say, you will marry your parents; you will raise your children the way you were raised; your reactions to stressful situations were taught you by observing your parents etc....

#Oedipus

Oedipus has long offered the classic example of hamartia.  At first glance the story seems to argue that we are all bound to an inescapable fate, a destiny beyond our control, and that it is folly to try to escape

THE ESL ACADEMY BY SIRRANA

“#Extremism”

We often hear a word “Extremism” in our daily routine read in newspapers and frequently hear on news channels but, what actually Extremism is? Extremism is a complex phenomenon, although its complexity is often hard to see. Most simply, it can be defined as activities (beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, strategies) of a person or group far removed from the ordinary. In conflict settings it manifests as a severe form of conflict engagement. However, the labeling of activities, people, and groups as "extremist," and the defining of what is "ordinary" in any setting is always a subjective and political matter.
Question emerge that where does extremism come from? There are a variety of schools of thought on the sources of extremism some believe that adverse conditions (poverty, inadequate access to healthcare, nutrition, education, and employment), a denial of basic human needs (for security, dignity, group identity, and political participation), unending experiences of humiliation, and an ever-widening gap between what people believe they deserve and what they can attain leads to extreme acts.
Now keep that above discussed meaning in mind one can contemplate that the extremism has a cause-effect relationship in Pakistan. Extremism in Pakistan is driven by multiple factors and occurs on three levels. Firstly, among lower-income groups, mainly in poorly governed areas including the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan and nearby districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, as well as parts of southern Punjab and interior Sindh, where poverty, inequality, and loose administrative structures spur extremism.
Secondly, the level and trends of extremism are different in the middle-income group. The drivers of extremist are mainly political. These trends are influenced by both internal and external political developments and promotion of an extremist narrative by groups as well as the media. Almost every religious group-whether its ambitions are political, sectarian or militant - maintains wings with a particular focus on women, traders, lawyers, doctors, and teachers, among others. These wings have a key role in promoting extremism among middle-income groups and have an array of tools at their disposal to increase their influence.
Extremism is not only a dilemma of East and Middle-East but of west too, Specially USA. There were almost as many terrorist attacks by right-wing extremists as compare to Islamists extremists. In USA from 2008 to 2017 according to a report, there were 201 terrorist incidents form and 115 incidents were by right-wing extremists from white supremacists to militia to “sovereign citizen”. When it comes to right-wing extremism attackers are also ‘mostly men’ and purely white and were also mere deadly. The reality is the most significant domestic terror threaten west, especially USA have right-wing extremism.
How can we approach to address these extremists? There are a variety of approaches used by leaders, diplomats, military experts, third parties, and others to address extremism, which fall on a continuum from total elimination of extremists to total engagement. The choice of such strategies is usually determined by the perspective taken on the primary sources of extremism (from individual pathologies to social, political and economic conditions) as well as the level of representation of the larger population's legitimate interests that the extremists are able to secure. It is a mistake to imagine extremists as isolated actors. One can strategized aimed to address extremism by eliminating them by simply the use of information, the law, and force to identify, locate, and apprehend (or destroy) extremists or key leaders of extremist groups. Sometimes this entails using legal maneuvers to tie up economic resources, thereby crippling the ability of such groups to organize and function. The strategy of isolation is often used by more moderate members of a community who disagree with the tactics of their more extreme members. In situation of a protected conflict, One often find moderates (pro-negotiation camp), hardliners (anti-negotiation camp), and extremists (anti-other camp) on each side. This strategy is an active attempt to establish the conditions which grow the more moderate (and even hard-line) segments, thus attracting the more moderate members of extremist groups toward a position of tolerance and away from a commitment to the destruction of the other.

👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻The ESL ACADEMY...BY SIRRANA


👉🏻👉🏻Main Concepts of 'Tradition and Individual Talent'


As a critic T. S. Eliot was very practical. He called himself “a classicist in literature”. According to Eliot, a critic must obey the objective standards to analyze any work. He thought criticism as a science. Eliot’s criticism became revolutionary at that time. 2oth century got ‘metaphysical revival’ because of Eliot. He first recognized or accepted the uniqueness of ‘metaphysical poets’ of 17th century. Eliot came with new ideas in criticism’s world in19th century. Eliot believed that when the old and new will become readjusted, it will be the end of criticism. He says:
“From time to time it is desirable, that some critic shall appear to review the past of our literature and set the poets and the poems in a new order.”
Eliot demands, from any critic, ability for judgment and powerful liberty of mind to identify and to interpret. Eliot planned numerous critical concepts that gained wide currency and had a broad influence on criticism. ‘Objective co-relative’, ‘Dissociation of sensibility’, ‘Unification of sensibility’, ‘Theory of Depersonalization’ are few of Eliot’s theories, which becomes ‘cliché’ now. He emphasizes on ‘a highly developed sense of fact’. He gave new direction and new tools of criticism. George Watson writes about Eliot:
“Eliot made English criticism look different, but not in a simple sense. He offered it a new range of rhetorical possibilities, confirmed it in its increasing contempt for historical process, and yet reshaped its notion of period by a handful of brilliant institutions.”


·       Main Concepts of the Essay:

      The essay “Tradition and Individual Talent” was first published in “The Egoist”. “The Egoist” was a literary magazine, which is considered today as “England’s Most Important Modernist Periodical”. This essay was later published in “The Sacred Wood”, which is Eliot’s first book of criticism.
   
 This essay is divided into three parts:
1.     The concept of tradition
2.     The theory of impersonal poetry
3.     The conclusion with a gist that “the poet’s sense of tradition and the impersonality of poetry are complimentary things.”

👉🏻Now I am explaining the main concepts of the essay...
👉🏻🌹1.     The Concept of Tradition:

In first pat Eliot speaks about tradition, He says: “Seldom, perhaps, does the word (tradition) appear except in a phrase of censure”. It means in English writings they don’t see the word ‘tradition’ in positive way.
He says about Englishmen’s attitude towards French Literature. Englishmen have a habit to feel proud on themselves. That is the proud for their creativity and more for their ‘less’ criticality. In French there is a mass of critical writing. Eliot compares English with French that they (French) have habit of critical method and English have habit of ‘conclusion’. He says:
“…we only conclude (we are such unconscious people) that the French are more critical than we; and sometimes even plume ourselves a little with the fact, as if the French were less spontaneous”.

          Eliot seems quite in favor of such ‘criticality’. He thinks “criticism is as inevitable as breathing”. Then he talks about tradition. The Englishmen, while analyzing the poet, admire those aspects which are different from the poet’s predecessors. Means, they want to get ‘newness’ and ‘uniqueness’ from every poet to praise them. They always find isolation of the poet from his (mainly) immediate predecessors. Then Eliot says, if we put aside such prejudice; we can come to know that the poet’s individuality, which we are finding, is very much connected with his ancestors. According to Eliot the most individual part of any work is the part in which the dead poets are mirrored vigorously. And such resemblance is mostly seen in the period of maturity of the poet, not in the period of his adolescence. So, by this he asserts that tradition and individuality go together.
   

TS ELIOT AS A CRITICS...

👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻The ESL ACADEMY...BY SIRRANA


👉🏻👉🏻Main Concepts of 'Tradition and Individual Talent'


As a critic T. S. Eliot was very practical. He called himself “a classicist in literature”. According to Eliot, a critic must obey the objective standards to analyze any work. He thought criticism as a science. Eliot’s criticism became revolutionary at that time. 2oth century got ‘metaphysical revival’ because of Eliot. He first recognized or accepted the uniqueness of ‘metaphysical poets’ of 17th century. Eliot came with new ideas in criticism’s world in19th century. Eliot believed that when the old and new will become readjusted, it will be the end of criticism. He says:
“From time to time it is desirable, that some critic shall appear to review the past of our literature and set the poets and the poems in a new order.”
Eliot demands, from any critic, ability for judgment and powerful liberty of mind to identify and to interpret. Eliot planned numerous critical concepts that gained wide currency and had a broad influence on criticism. ‘Objective co-relative’, ‘Dissociation of sensibility’, ‘Unification of sensibility’, ‘Theory of Depersonalization’ are few of Eliot’s theories, which becomes ‘cliché’ now. He emphasizes on ‘a highly developed sense of fact’. He gave new direction and new tools of criticism. George Watson writes about Eliot:
“Eliot made English criticism look different, but not in a simple sense. He offered it a new range of rhetorical possibilities, confirmed it in its increasing contempt for historical process, and yet reshaped its notion of period by a handful of brilliant institutions.”


·       Main Concepts of the Essay:

      The essay “Tradition and Individual Talent” was first published in “The Egoist”. “The Egoist” was a literary magazine, which is considered today as “England’s Most Important Modernist Periodical”. This essay was later published in “The Sacred Wood”, which is Eliot’s first book of criticism.
   
 This essay is divided into three parts:
1.     The concept of tradition
2.     The theory of impersonal poetry
3.     The conclusion with a gist that “the poet’s sense of tradition and the impersonality of poetry are complimentary things.”

👉🏻Now I am explaining the main concepts of the essay...
👉🏻🌹1.     The Concept of Tradition:

In first pat Eliot speaks about tradition, He says: “Seldom, perhaps, does the word (tradition) appear except in a phrase of censure”. It means in English writings they don’t see the word ‘tradition’ in positive way.
He says about Englishmen’s attitude towards French Literature. Englishmen have a habit to feel proud on themselves. That is the proud for their creativity and more for their ‘less’ criticality. In French there is a mass of critical writing. Eliot compares English with French that they (French) have habit of critical method and English have habit of ‘conclusion’. He says:
“…we only conclude (we are such unconscious people) that the French are more critical than we; and sometimes even plume ourselves a little with the fact, as if the French were less spontaneous”.

          Eliot seems quite in favor of such ‘criticality’. He thinks “criticism is as inevitable as breathing”. Then he talks about tradition. The Englishmen, while analyzing the poet, admire those aspects which are different from the poet’s predecessors. Means, they want to get ‘newness’ and ‘uniqueness’ from every poet to praise them. They always find isolation of the poet from his (mainly) immediate predecessors. Then Eliot says, if we put aside such prejudice; we can come to know that the poet’s individuality, which we are finding, is very much connected with his ancestors. According to Eliot the most individual part of any work is the part in which the dead poets are mirrored vigorously. And such resemblance is mostly seen in the period of maturity of the poet, not in the period of his adolescence. So, by this he asserts that tradition and individuality go together.
   

Semantics_Pragmatics_an_Discourse Semantics and Pragmatics BY SIRRANA

#Semantics_Pragmatics_an_Discourse

Semantics and Pragmatics

Not only has semantics now become an important area of inquiry in linguistics but it has also been extended to the level of pragmatics. Pragmatics is seen b some linguists as an independent level of language analysis as it is based on utterances in the same way as phonology is based on sound, syntax on sentences and semantics on both words and sentences.
The link between pragmatics and semantics remains, however, that at both levels we are concerned with meaning. Semantics attempts to relate meaning to logic and truth, and deals with meaning as a matter primarily of sense-relations within the language. Pragmatics attempts to relate meaning to context of utterance; it views language as action which is performed by speakers.
What is the context of utterance? A sentence is uttered by a speaker, and when the speaker utters it, he/she performs an act. This is called a speech-act. Since it is performed by a speaker in relation to a hearer (or addressee), it depends on the conditions prevailing at the time the speech-act is performed. These conditions include the previous knowledge shared by speaker and hearer, and the reasons for the performance of the act. All these taken together constitute the context of utterance-speaker(s), hearer(h), sentence(s) and utterance(u).
Meaning in this sense involves the speaker’s intention to convey a certain meaning which may not be evident in the message itself. In the sentence ‘There’s a fly in my soup’, the message is that ‘There is a fly in my soup’ in which the speaker’s intention may be to complain. So the meaning of the utterance contains the meaning of complaint. A hearer hearing this sentence may interpret it not just as a statement but as a request to take the soup away. That is, the meaning will include some intended effect on the hearer.
The consideration of meaning as a part of the utterance or speech act was initiated by the philosopher J.L. Austin (How to Do Things With Words) and developed by J. Searle and H.Y. Grice. Let us consider Austin’s idea first. Keeping in view the above distinction between the speaker’s intention to convey a particular meaning which may not be evident in the message itself, Austin makes a distinction between Sense and Force. Sense is the propositional content or logical meaning of a sentence. Austin calls it the locutionary meaning. Force is the act performed in uttering a sentence. It is the performative meaning, defined by Austin as Illocutionary Force. For example, the utterance ‘Please shut the door’ is an imperative sentence. The logical or propositional context is that of shutting the door. It will have the force of request if the speaker and hearer are in some relationship which allows the speaker to make requests to the hearer, the hearer is in a position where he is capable of shutting the door, there is a particular door which the speaker is indicating and that door is open. If all these conditions are not fulfilled, the utterance will not have the force of request. We can chart the meaning of the above sentence as follows:
Please shut the door Sentence form : Imperative
Sense : Shutting the door (someone)
Force : Request
In this sentence, sense and force are very similar to each other. However, in some cases there may be a difference. For example, if the speaker says, Can you shut the door?’ the sentence form is interrogative, the sense is ‘can’ + ‘you’ + ‘shut the door’, that is, the logical meaning of the sentence is a question about the ability of the hearer to shut the door, evident in the sense of the modal ‘can’. However, the force is still that of request. In such an utterance, it is clear that the sense is not the total meaning of the utterance, and that if only the sense is considered, the utterance will not succeed as a successful communication. If the hearer takes only the sense of the above sentence, he will understand the sentence only as a question regarding his ability to shut the door; it is only when the force of the utterance is understood that the hearer takes it as a request to shut the door, provided all the conditions for the performance of the request are fulfilled.
In other instances there is even more discrepancy between what the sentence says and what the speaker of the sentence intends the hearer to understand by it, i.e. between sense and force. ‘There’s a cold breeze coming through the door’ is a statement in terms of form and sense, but the speaker may intend it to be a request to shut the door. In this way, there can he any number of variable meanings of the same utterance.
This raises a problem: how can we interpret a sentence when sense and force are very different and nothing in the sentence itself indicates what its force can be? Here a distinction can be made between utterances which are more conventional in nature and others which are more individual and situation-specific. For example, ‘Can you shut the door?’ is the kind of utterance which has become conventionalized to a great extent, so that a hearer is less likely to misinterpret it as a real question, and more likely to understand its force of request. But in the case of ‘There’s a cold breeze coming through the door’, or ‘Its very cold in the room’ or ‘Are you immune to cold?’ there is a more indirect manner of making the request to the hearer. These are more dependent on the relation between the speaker and the hearer. While the conventionalized utterance can occur in many situations, the variable utterances can occur only in specific situations e.g. informal, friendly etc. Only under such conditions will the hearer be able to infer the intended meaning of the speaker.
It is for this reason that Grice (Logic and Conversation, 1975) explains that all communication takes place in a situation where people are co-operative. When people communicate, they assume that the other person will be cooperative and they themselves wish to cooperate. Grice calls this the ‘Cooperative Principle’. Under this principle, the following maxims are followed:
(i) Maxim of quantity. Give the right amount of information, neither less nor more than what is required.
(ii) Maxirn of quality. Make your contribution such that it is true; do not say what you know is false or for which you do not have adequate evidence.
(iii) Maxim of relation. Be relevant.
(iv) Maxim of manner. Avoid obscurity and ambiguity; be brief and orderly.
These ‘Maxims’ are different from rules in that while rules cannot be violated, maxims are often violated. That is, people often give more or less information than required, or make irrelevant contributions. When this happens, some implied meanings arise as a result. For example, in the interaction:
A : Where’s my box of chocolates?
B : The children were in your room this morning.
B violates the Maxim of relation because the reply is apparently not relevant to A’s question. A proper response to A’s question would be that B answers A’s question about where the chocolates are. Since B does not give this answer, it implies that B does not know the answer, and also implies a suggestion on B’s part that the children may have taken the chocolates. Similarly, in the interaction:
A : I failed in my test today.
B : Wonderful !
In this case, B’s response violates the maxim of quality in that the expression ‘wonderful’ here is not an expression of delight or actual wonder. A’s statement is not such that would demand a response of exclamation of delight. That such a response is given by B means that B implies something else: the negative of ‘wonderful’ meaning ‘its not wonderful’. But by giving a response like this, and violating the maxim, B is implying irony. The implication generated by an untruthful and exaggerated statement is sarcasm; implication generated by an opposite statement from the one expected is irony. These meanings are possible through the deliberate violation of the conversational maxims and are called ‘conversational implicatures’ by Grice.
The insights provided by these theories of pragmatics have helped us to understand meaning as part of communication rather than as something abstract. They have also helped to analyse units of linguistic organization higher than the sentence, pairs of sentences taken as units, and sequences of sentences taken as texts, leading us to the analysis of meaning in connected language, i.e., discourse.
Discourse Analysis
As soon as we begin to study meaning in language in relation to context, we find that it is situated within two kinds of context. One is the extra-linguistic, i.e. the content of the external world. The other is the intra-linguistic, i.e., the linguistic context in which that piece of language occurs. So, for example, words occur within a sentential context, sentences occur within a context consisting of other sentences. In the ‘analysis of language at the level of discourse, we are concerned with this intra-linguistic context.
Discourse is a level higher than that of the sentence. It includes all the other linguistic levels—sound, lexis, syntax. All these continue to make up a discourse. But here we must distinguish between the grammatical aspect and the semantic/ pragmatic aspect of discourse. The former creates a text and the latter creates a discourse. In the former, words continue to form sentences, sentences combine to form a text. Just as there are rules for combination of words, there are certain relations between sentences and rules by which they may be related. These rules of sentence-connection create cohesion in the text. At the same time, these sentences are also utterances, i.e. they have a force which is vital for understanding their meaning, which are combined to create coherence. Thus we may distinguish between text and discourse in that text is created by sentence-cohesion and discourse is created by coherence. A discourse may be defined as a stretch of language-use which is coherent in its meaning. It will of course include grammar and cohesion. The following is an example of discourse which is both cohesive and coherent:
A : Can you go to Karachi tomorrow?
B : Yes, I can.
The interchange is cohesive because the second sentence does not repeat the whole of the first sentence. Instead of the whole sentence: ‘I can go to Karachi tomorrow’, B says only: ‘I can’, omitting the rest. This indicates that the second sentence is linked to the first in sequential order. It is also coherent because B has given an appropriate response to A from A’s request. However, in the following example:
A : Can you go to Karachi tomorrow?
B : There is a general strike.
The two sentences are not cohesive because the second sentence is not linked to the first sentence in a grammatical sense. There is no repetition or obvious connection between the two sentences. But they are coherent, because B replies to A’s request in a sentence which gives some information implying that it may not be possible to go to Karachi. Thus, this exchange is coherent but not cohesive.
In order to analyse discourse, it may be necessary to consider all aspects of language: the grammatical as well as the semantic and pragmatic (not forgetting the role of intonation). Grammatical forms which are used to link sentences and create cohesion can be of several kinds : logical connectors such as ‘and’, ‘but’; conjuncts such as ‘also’, ‘equally’, ‘furthermore’, contrasts such as ‘instead’ and similarly, ‘for’ ‘thus’.
Deictic elements such as ‘here’, ‘there’, also indicate other references and are thus important in creating cohesion as well as discourse meaning.
Apart from grammatical features, discourse is constituted of features which are particular to the mode, tenor and field or domain of that discourse. The mode may be spoken or written. In spoken discourse there will be features of: inexplicitness, lack of clear sentence boundaries and sentence-completion, repetition, hesitation, interaction and maintenance features, e.g. ‘well’, ‘you know’, while in written discourse there will be features of explicitness, clear sentence boundaries and more complex sentences, formal features but no interactional and monitoring features. The tenor of discourse refers to features relating to the relationship between the speaker and the addressee in a given situation—these features reflect the formality or informality, degree of politeness, a personal or impersonal touch. Thus, if the relationship is a polite one, there will be respectful terms of address, e.g. ‘Sir’, and indirect requests rather than commands. If the relationship is one of familiarity, the features will include terms of friendship e.g. ‘dear’, direct requests and imperatives. Lastly, field or domain of discourse pertains to the area of activity to which that discourse belongs, e.g. whether the discourse is in the field of religion, science, law, journalism, advertising. In each field, the discourse will be characterized by a particular kind of vocabulary and sentence structure, e.g. sports commentary uses present tense; advertising uses many adjectives. Literary discourse often freely combines features from many kinds of discourse and occupies a different status from other types of discourse.

five sources of sublimity by Longinus

The ESL ACADEMY BY SIRRANA..

👉🏻👉🏻🌹What according to Longinus are the sources of the sublime and how does he distinguish the true from the false sublime?

👉🏻👉🏻By the word 'sublime' Longinus means "elevation" or "lofti­ness"—all that which raises style above the ordinary, and gives to it dis­tinction in its widest and truest sense. So sublimity is "a certain distinc­tion and excellence in composition. " Both nature and art, says Longinus, contribute to sublimity in literature. "Art is perfect when it seems to be nature, and nature hits the mark when she contains art hidden within her." (Longinus)

👉🏻👉🏻Longinus finds five principal sources of the sublime, the first two of which are largely the gifts of nature the remaining three the gifts of art
👉🏻(1) grandeur of thought,
👉🏻(2) capacity for strong emotion,
👉🏻(3) appropriate use of Figures,
👉🏻 (4) Nobility of diction, and
👉🏻 (5) dignity of composition or a happy synthesis of all the preceding elements.

👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻SirRana..

👉🏻(1) Grandeur of Thought
Nobody can produce a sublime work unless his thoughts are sublime. For "sublimity is the echo of greatness of soul It is impossible for those whose whole lives are full of mean and servile ideas and habits, to produce anything that is admirable and worthy of an immortal life. It is only natural that great accents should fall from the lips of those whose thoughts have always been deep and full of majesty." Stately thoughts belong to the loftiest minds.
Therefore, he who would attain distinction of style must feed his soul on the works of the great masters, as Homer, Plato and Demosthenes, and capture from them some of their own greatness, This reflects the classicism of Longinus. However, what Longinus has in mind is not mere imitation or borrowing, but that "men catch fire from the spirit of others." To Longinus the operation is one that aims at capturing something of the ancient spirit, something of that vital creative force which had gone to the " making, of the earlier masterpieces; and its effect he describes as that of illumination, guiding the mind in some mysterious way to the lofty standards of the ideal.
The grandeur of conception is to be emphasized and made effective by a suitable treatment of material. Details should be so chosen as to form an organic whole. Amplification or accumulation of all the details of a given subject is also helpful. Such an amplification by its profusion suggests overwhelming strength and magnitude. The use of vivid and compelling images is also useful, for it brings home to the readers the conception of the writer, effectively and forcefully.
(2) Capacity for Strong Emotion
The second source of the sublime is vehement and inspired passion. Longinus asserts that nothing contributes more to loftiness of tone in writing than genuine emotion. At one place, for instance, he says, "I would confidently affirm that nothing makes so much for grandeur as true emotion in the right place, for it inspires the words, as it were, with a wild gust of mad enthusiasm and fills them with divine frenzy. " It is for this reason that he prefers the Illiad to the Odyssey and Demosthenes to Cicero. But the emotions have to be 'true emotions' and 'in the right place'. He thus justifies emotions more artistically than Aristotle. However, the subject of emotions has not been dealt with in detail. The author declares his intention of dealing with it in a second treatise, which unfortunately has not come down to us.
👉🏻(3) Appropriate Use of Pictures
The third source of attaining excellence of style is the use of figures of speech which he considers very important, and so devotes nearly one third of his work to it. He shows great discrimination and originality of thinking in his treatment of the subject. Figures of speech should not be used mechanically, rather they must be rooted in genuine emotion. Used naturally, they impart elevation to style, and are themselves made more effective by an elevated style.
The figures of thought and diction have to be judiciously employed. The grandeur of any figure "will depend on its being employed in the right place and the right manner, on the right occasion, and with the right motive.'" It strengthens the sublime, and the sublime supports it. We need the figures only "when the nature of the theme makes it allowable to amplify, to multiply or to speak in the tones of exaggeration or passion; to overlay every sentence with ornament is very pedantic." When the figure is unrelated to passion, it creates a suspicion of dishonesty and is divorced from sublimity. The chief figures that make for sublimity are the theoretical question, asyndeton, hyperbaton, and periphrasis. In brief, the use of figures must be psychological—intimately connected with thought and emotion, and not merely mechanical.
(4) Nobility of Diction
The fourth source of the 'sublime' is diction which includes choice and arrangement of words and the use of metaphors and ornamental language. The discussion of diction is incomplete because four leaves of this part of the book are unfortunately lost. Nevertheless, words, when suitable and striking, he says, have ''a moving and seductive effect" upon the reader and are the first things in a style to lend it "grandeur, beauty and mellowness, dignity, force, power, and a sort of glittering charm." It is they that breathe voice into dead things. They are 'the very light of ought'—a radiance that illumines the innermost recesses of the writer's mind. But 'it should be noted that imposing language is not suitable for every occasion. When the object is trivial, to invest it with grand and stately words would have the same effect as putting a full-sized tragic mask on the head of a little child.' This necessitates the use of common words which, when in elegant, make up for it by their raciness and forcefulness. Among these ornaments of speech Longinus considers metaphor and hyperbole.
(5) Dignity of Composition
The fifth source of the sublime is the dignity of composition, that is, a dignified composition or the arrangement of words. It should be one that blends thought, emotion, figures, and words themselves—the preceding four elements of sublimity—into a harmonious whole. Such an arrangement has not only 'a natural power of persuasion and of giving pleasure but also the marvellous power of exalting the soul and swaying the heart of men." It makes the hearer or reader share the emotion of the speaker. But 'if the elements of grandeur be separated from one another, the sublimity is scattered and made to vanish but when organised into a compact system and still further encircled in a chain of harmony they gain a living voice by being merely rounded into a period.' A harmonious composition alone sometimes makes up for the deficiency of the other elements. A proper rhythm is one of the elements in this harmony. Negatively, deformity and not grandeur is the result if the composition is either extremely concise or unduly prolix. The one cripples the thought and the other overextends it.
👉🏻👉🏻SirRana
(6) The False and the True Sublime
Making a distinction between the false and the true sublime, Longinus says that the false sublime is characterised first, by timidity or bombast of language, which is as great an evil as swellings in the body. "It is drier than dropsy." Secondly, the false sublime is characterised by puerility, which is a parade and pomp of language, tawdry and affected, and so frigid. Thirdly, the false sublime results when there is a cheap display of passion, when it is not justified by the occasion, and so is wearisome. True sublime, on the other hand, pleases all and "pleases always," for it expresses thoughts of universal validity—thoughts common to man of all ages and centuries—in a language which instinctively uplifts our souls.
POINTS TO REMEMBER
1. "Sublime" means "elevation", or "loftiness"—"a certain distinction and excellence in composition."
2. The principal sources of the Sublime are—(1) grandeur of thought; (2) capacity for strong emotion; (3) appropriate use of figures of speech; (4) Nobility of diction, and (5) dignity of composition or a happy blend of the preceding four elements.
3. Sublimity the echo of a great soul; lofty thoughts and ideas a pre­ condition for sublimity; trivial thoughts—mean and servile ideas— do not lead to sublimity.
4. The second source of the sublime is the vehement, inspired and genuine emotion.
5. Sublimity can be attained by the appropriate use of the figures of speech which should not be used mechanically but naturally to be rooted in genuine emotion—should be employed in the right place and right manner. The chief figures that make for sublimily are asyndaton, hyperbaton and periphrasis.
6. For sublimity the choice and arrangement of right words. Use of grand words for a trivial object will only be ridiculous.
7. Hence sublimity in a work of art is the result of a happy blending of lofty thought, strong and genuine emotion, appropriate figures of speech and suitable words. Elements of grandeur cannot he separated from each other.
8. True Vs. False Sublime—False sublime is characterized by timidity or bombast of language and also by puerility (a parade and pomp of language). True Sublime, on the other hand, is marked by universality of appeal: it pleases all and always : it uplifts our souls.
👉🏻👉🏻The ESL ACADEMY BY SIRRANA..

VISIT OUR CHANNEL

FACEBOOK PAGES..