By a definition still to be challenged, there is no literature
outside written language. (The term oral literature is regarded
as a sad oxymoron by linguists who specialize in oral cultures.)
Furthermore, there is no appropriation of the art of language,
of its aesthetic expressiveness, without understanding language,
a necessary but still insufficient condition. (It is insufficient
because to understand language is not equal to using language
creatively). Partisans of literacy will say that there is no
literature without literacy. However, language use in literature
is not the same as language use in daily life, in the
self-constitutive experience of living and surviving.
When human experience is projected in language and language
becomes a medium for new experiences, there is no distinction in
the experience. The syncretic character of language as it is
formed in a particular pragmatic framework corresponds to the
syncretic character of human activity in its very early stages.
Distinctions in language are introduced once this experience of
self-constitution is segmented and various forms of labor
division are brought about by expectations of efficiency. The
scale of humankind, whatever it might be at a given moment, is
reflected in distinctions in the pragmatic framework, which, in
turn, determines distinctions in human expression and
communication through language. Survival becomes a form of human
practice, losing its primeval condition when it implies the
experience of cooperation, and the realization, though limited,
of what transcends immediacy.
Pages:
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793