| April 5, 2001 The Medium of Language Roger Fowler argued that while many people see language as the medium through which literary ideas are conveyed, in actuality “literature is language” (556). I agree with Fowler that this idea might be a bit hard for “literary critics to swallow” (556) – I know it certainly was for me. Before reading this article, I was of the firm opinion that literature is pretty much an idea or concept of some kind that needs to be expressed, and it doesn’t really matter what medium is used – whether it is language (any language) or even art or music. When Fowler made his point that language and literature cannot be separated, I strongly disagreed. I felt that changing the language could not change the value of the literature or the message that the author intended. It seems, however, that I was being a little narrow-minded. I made one exception in my mind to this – poetry. When a poem is translated from Spanish into English, even though we might still appreciate the imagery and the intent behind the poem, a great deal is lost in the translation. If the poem is translated word for word, concept for concept, much of the figurative language, rhyming, and rhythmic structure is destroyed. On the other hand, some translators try to keep the rhythm and rhyme by translating more along the idea of the poem, not the actual words. Again, something is lost; poetry is too carefully considered as it is written. The language and the literature of the poem are inseparably connected. Initially, I didn’t consider how prose might fit in to the picture. But even as I continued reading the idea occurred to me that perhaps they aren’t as different as I was making them out to be. As I toyed with this thought, Fowler wrote about his “reluctance to accept […] the belief that there is a distinct difference between poetic or literary language” (556). He had not even mentioned this before, and as I read that I realized he was right. While the same consideration for rhyming and sometimes rhythm are not quite so strong in prose, a good author takes just as much care in prose writing as a poet does. There is alliteration, sentence length, metaphors, word choice, and appearance. A slight change in wording, through translation, can lose something the author thought vital to include. Still, even in a translation, the idea is usually very clearly portrayed. The “moral” of the literature is not lost. But I agree with Fowler – the language and the literature are tied together. Language begins as the means through which literature is expressed; but then the two become welded together. Any sort of separation yields a slight loss, though this does not necessarily degrade the literary value. |