INTRODUCTION TO LITERATURE

INTRODUCTION TO LITERATURE BY : GROUP ONE MEMBERS : ALFIN (N1D216004) WD.VITRIA DITA (N1D216132) RISKA ATISYA BALQIS (N1D216064) MELI SAMELIA (N1D216044) RIYAN RISALDI MANGIDI (N1D216062) M.FADRIANSYAH MAHENDRA AAS (N1D216118 ) MUSYAFAR MALIK (N1D216046 ) NURFATIMAH LISA MUSTIKA M. (N1D216 ) ASRIANI AMIN (N1D216018) ENGLISH LITERATURE FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDY HALUOLEO UNIVERSITY 2017 TABLE OF CONTENT TABLE OF CONTENT 2 INTRODUCTION 3 CONTENT 4 What Is Literature 4 The Distinction of Literature and Study of Literature 5 The Nature of Literature 6 CLOSING 10 REFERENCES 11  INTRODUCTION Bismillahirrahmanirrahim First of word, I would like to say thanks to Allah almighty who has given us all we need in order that we are able to finish the assignment given to us. Next, thank you for the lecturer of Introduction to Literature. This paper explains about the definition of literature and study of literature, the distinctions of them, and the nature of literature. These problems are essentials for anyone who deals with literature especially the students of English literature. We have to know first what literature is, then we can study it rightly. In arranging this paper I and my group have done some researchers by reading some books that are suggested by our lecturer, the book of Austin Warren and Rene Wellek which entitled Theory of Literature. Besides we also do some reading activities (conduct with the problems mentioned) on the internet. This paper, we hope would give clear explanation relate to the problems and is expected to have advantages for the readers. Nevertheless, we realize that this paper is not perfect, therefore we are open to all critics and advices. Kendari, 12th March 2017 Author B. CONTENT What is literature ? Etymologically ‘literature’ comes from the word ‘littera’ means belles –letters (the smallest part of alphabet ). According to Rees, there are two definitions of literature, as the following : Literature in broad sense means everything in print or everything that is written. For instance, dialogues, novels, poetries, folklores, etc. Literature in narrow sense means every written material which expresses and communicates thoughts, feelings and attitudes towards life. There is a little addition for the definition of literature that many of the things we now call literature began to live without being written at all. Long time ago there were narrators who moved from place to place to tell stories. There are the works we recognize now as literature are told from mouth to mouth, such as the famous old poetry Beuwolf, folklores from Buton island Wandiu-ndiu, old songs, etc. thus we see what is called oral literature. Some epics were told, several lyrics were presented orally, plays were prepared and performed from place to place. How about study of literature ? of course it is different from literature its self. With reading the book entitled Theory of Literature by Rene Wellek and Austin Warren, we learn that the study of literature is something deal with if not science, is a species of knowledge or of learning. It is also said that there have been attempts to obliterate the distinction of literature and study of literature. For instance, it has been argued that one cannot understand literature unless one writes it, that one cannot and should not study Pope without trying his own hand at heroic couplets or an Elizabethan drama without himself writing a drama in blank verse. Some theorists would simply deny that literary study is knowledge and advise a "second creation," with results which to most of us seem futile today—Pater's description of Mona Lisa or the florid passages in Symonds or Symons. Other theorists draw rather different skeptical conclusions from our contrast between literature and its study: literature, they argue, cannot be "studied" at all. We can only read, enjoy, appreciate it. For the rest, we can only accumulate all kinds of information "about" literature. Such skepticism is actually much more widespread than one might suppose. In practice, it shows itself in a stress on environmental "facts" and in the disparagement of all attempts to go beyond them. Appreciation, taste, enthusiasm are left to the private indulgence as an inevitable, though deplorable, escape from the austerity of sound scholarship. But such a dichotomy into "scholarship" and "appreciation" makes no provision at all for the true study of literature, at once "literary" and "systematic." Distinction of Literature and Study Of Literature As said on the previous passages, literature is kind of creative works of art in the written or printed, and even oral forms. While the study of literature deals with science, knowledge, or learning. In the book of Theory of Literature (pp 3-5) there are some explanations relate to the distinction, that there are skeptical theorists on the book contrasts relate to the literature and its study. Literature is the smallest part of language, we find in the written forms such as epics, dramas, lyrics, and find in oral forms. The literature works are creative and aesthetic. While the study of literature is similar to other science or knowledge, it deals intellectually with art of literature developed by the natural sciences, which need only be transferred to the study of literature. Several kinds of such transfer can be distinguished. One is the attempt to emulate the general scientific ideals of objectivity, impersonality, and certainty, an attempt which on the whole supports the collecting of neutral facts. Another is the effort to imitate the methods of natural science through the study of causal antecedents and origins -y in practice, this "genetic method" justifies the tracing of any kind of relationship as long as it is possible on chronological grounds. Applied more rigidly, scientific causality is used to explain literary phenomena by the assignment of determining causes to economic, social, and political conditions. Again, there is the introduction of the quantitative methods appropriately used in some sciences, i.e., statistics, charts, and graphs. And finally there is the attempt to use biological concepts in the tracing of the evolution of literature. We shall have to come back to some of the problems raised by this widespread application of natural science to literary study. They cannot be dismissed too facilely and there is, no doubt, a large field in which the two methodologies contact or even overlap. Such fundamental methods as induction and deduction, analysis, synthesis, and comparison are common to all types of systematic knowledge. But, patently, the other solution com- mends itself : literary scholarship has its own valid methods which are not always those of the natural sciences but are nevertheless intellectual methods. Only a very narrow conception of truth can exclude the achievements of the humanities from the realm of knowledge. The natural scientists aim to establish general laws while the his- torians try to grasp the unique and non-recurring fact. This view was elaborated and somewhat modified by Heinrich Rickert, who drew a line not so much between generalizing and individualizing methods as between the sciences of nature and the sciences of culture.6 The sciences of culture, he argued, are inter- ested in the concrete and individual. Individuals, however, can be discovered and comprehended only in reference to some scheme of values, which is merely another name for culture. There are thus two extreme solutions to our problem. One, made fashionable by the prestige of the natural sciences, identifies scientific and historical method and leads either to the mere collection of facts or to the establishment of highly generalized historical "laws." The other, denying that literary scholarship is a science, asserts the personal character of literary "understanding" and the "individuality," even "uniqueness," of every work of literature. But in its extreme formulation the anti-scientific solution has its own obvious dangers. Personal "intuition" may lead to a merely emotional "appreciation," to complete subjectivity. To stress the "individuality" and even "uniqueness" of every work of art—though wholesome as a reaction against facile generalizations—is to forget that no work of art can be wholly "unique" since it then would be completely incomprehensible. It is, of course, true that there is only one Hamlet or even one "Trees" by Joyce Kilmer. But even a rubbish heap is unique in the sense that its precise proportions, position, and chemical combinations cannot be duplicated exactly. Moreover, all words in every literary work of art are, by their very nature, "generals" and not particulars. The Nature of Literature What is literature? What is not literature? What is the nature of literature? One way is to define "literature" as everything in print. We then shall be able to study the "medical profession in the fourteenth century" or "planetary motion in the early Middle Ages" or "Witchcraft in Old and New England." As Edwin Greenlaw has argued, "Nothing related to the history of civilization is beyond our province" ; we are "not limited to belles lettres or even to printed or manuscript records in our effort to understand a period or civilization," and we "must see our work in the light of its possible contribution to the history of culture." According to Greenlaw's theory, and the practice of many scholars, literary study has thus become not merely closely related to the history of civilization but indeed identical with it. Such study is literary only in the sense that it is occupied with printed or written matter, necessarily the primary source of most history. It can be, of course, argued in defense of such a view that historians neglect these problems, that they are too much preoccupied with diplomatic, military, and economic history, and that thus the literary scholar is justified in invading and taking over a neighboring terrain. Doubtless nobody should be forbidden to enter any area he likes, and doubtless there is much to be said in favor of cultivating the history of civilization in the broadest terms. But still the study ceases to be literary. Another way of defining literature is to limit it to "great books," books which, whatever their subject, are "notable for literary form or expression." Here the criterion is either aesthetic worth alone or aesthetic worth in combination with general intellectual distinction. Within lyric poetry, drama, and fiction, the greatest works are selected on aesthetic grounds; other books are picked for their reputation or intellectual eminence together with aesthetic value of a rather narrow kind: style, composition, general force of presentation are the usual characteristics singled out. This is a common way of distinguishing or speaking of literature. The term "literature" seems best If we limit it to the art of literature, that is, to imaginative literature. There are certain difficulties with so employing the term; but, in English, the possible alternatives, such as "fiction" or "poetry," are either already pre-empted by narrower meanings or, like "imaginative literature" or belles lettres> are clumsy and misleading. One of the objections to "literature" is its suggestion (in its etymology from Utera) of limitation to written or printed literature; for, clearly, any coherent conception must include "oral literature." In this respect, the German term Wortkunst and the Russian slovesnost have the advantage over their English equivalent. The main distinctions to be drawn are between the literary, the everyday, and the scientific uses of language. A recent discussion of this point by Thomas Clark Pollock, The Nature of Literature? though true as far as it goes, seems not entirely satisfactory, especially in defining the distinction between literary and everyday language. The problem is crucial and by no means simple in practice, since literature, in distinction from the other arts, has no medium of its own and since many mixed forms and subtle transitions undoubtedly exist. It is fairly easy to distinguish between the language of science and the language of literature. The mere contrast between "thought" and "emotion" or "feeling" is, however, not sufficient. Literature does contain thought, while emotional language is by no means confined to literature: witness a lovers' conversation or an ordinary argument. Still, the ideal scientific language is purely "denotative": it aims at a one-to-one correspondence between sign and referent. The sign is completely arbitrary, hence can be replaced by equivalent signs. The sign is also transparent ; that is, without drawing attention to itself, it directs us unequivocally to its referent. Thus scientific language tends toward such a system of signs as mathematics or symbolic logic. Compared to scientific language, literary language will appear in some ways deficient. It abounds in ambiguities ; it is, like every other historical language, full of homonyms, arbitrary or irrational cate- gories such as grammatical gender; it is permeated with historical accidents, memories, and associations. In a word, it is highly "connotative." Moreover, literary language is far from merely referential. It has its expressive side; it conveys the tone and attitude of the speaker or writer. And it does not merely state and express what it says; it also wants to influence the attitude of the reader, persuade him, and ultimately change him. There is a further important distinction between literary and scientific language: in the former, the sign itself, the sound symbolism of the word, is stressed. All kinds of techniques have been invented to draw attention to it, such as meter, alliteration, and patterns of sound. These distinctions from scientific language may be made in different degrees by various works of literary art: for example, the sound pattern will be less important in a novel than in certain lyrical poems, impossible of adequate translation. Still, whatever the mixed modes apparent upon an examination of concrete literary works of art, the distinctions between the literary use and the scientific use seem clear: literary language is far more deeply involved in the historical structure of the language it stresses the awareness of the sign itself ; it has its expressive and pragmatic side which scientific language will always want so far as possible to minimize. More difficult to establish is the distinction between everyday and literary language. Everyday language is not a uniform concept: it includes such wide variants as colloquial language, the language of commerce, official language, the language of religion, the slang of students. But obviously much that has been said about literary language holds also for the other uses of language excepting the scientific. Everyday language also has its expressive function, though this varies from a colorless official announcement to the passionate plea roused by a moment of emotional crisis. Everyday language is full of the irrationalities and contextual changes of historical language, though there are moments when it aims at almost the precision of scientific description. Only occasionally is there awareness of the signs themselves in everyday speech. Yet such awareness does appear—in the sound symbolism of names and actions. No doubt, everyday language wants most frequently to achieve results, to influence actions and attitudes. But it would be false to limit it merely to communication. A child's talking for hours without a listener and an adult's almost meaningless social chatter show that there are many uses of language which are not strictly, or at least primarily, communicative. It is thus quantitatively that literary language is first of all to be differentiated from the varied uses of every day. The re- sources of language are exploited much more deliberately and systematically. In the work of a subjective poet, we have manifest a "personality" far more coherent and all-pervasive than persons as we see them in everyday situations. Certain types of poetry will use paradox, ambiguity, the contextual change of meaning, even the irrational association of grammatical categories such as gender or tense, quite deliberately. Poetic language organizes, tightens, the resources of everyday language, and sometimes does even violence to them, in an effort to force us into awareness and attention. Many of these resources a writer will find formed, and preformed, by the silent and anonymous workings of many generations. In certain highly developed literatures, and especially in certain epochs, the poet merely uses an established convention: the language, so to speak, poeticizes for him. Still, every work of art imposes an order, an organization, a unity on its materials. This unity sometimes seems very loose, as in many sketches or adventure stories j but it increases to the complex, close-knit organization of certain poems, in which it may be almost impossible to change a word or the position of a word without impairing its total effect. The pragmatic distinction between literary language and everyday language is much clearer We must realize that the distinction between art and non-art, between literature and the non-literary linguistic utterance, is fluid. The aesthetic function may extend to linguistic pronouncements of the most various sort. It would be a narrow conception of literature to exclude all propaganda art or didactic and satirical poetry. We have to recognize transitional forms like the essay, biography, and much rhetorical literature. In different periods of history the realm of the aesthetic function seems to expand or to contract : the personal letter, at times, was an art form, as was the sermon, while today, in agreement with the contemporary tendency against the confusion of genres, there appears a narrowing of the aesthetic function, a marked stress on purity of art, a reaction against pan-aestheticism and its claims as voiced by the aesthetics of the late nineteenth century. It seems, however, best to consider as literature only works in which the aesthetic function is dominant, while we can recognize that there are aesthetic elements, such as style and composition, in works which have a completely different, non-aesthetic purpose, such as scientific treatises, philosophical dissertations, political pamphlets, sermons. But the nature of literature emerges most clearly under the referential aspect. The center of literary art is obviously to be found in the traditional genres of the lyric, the epic, the drama. In all of them, the reference is to a world of fiction, of imagination.. C. CLOSING From the paper we conclude that literature is not just about belles-letters and printed materials, but it could also be found in oral form, called oral literature. Literature uses language as the media of it, as the stone or bronze of sculpture, or as the sounds of music. But it is not an inert materials like stone, it is produced by humans creativity that contains art. Literature is distinct from the study of literature. Due to the fact that study of literature is kind of if not science, it is knowledge and learning. Then we recognize the nature of literature by defining it to some different definitions. Literature which defined as everything in print, would mean the belles-letters, the brochures, novels, poetry and else. Literature which defined as imaginative literature would refer only to the kinds of writing that contains thought, human feelings, emotions, and art, such as novels, poetries, and others. Overall we can distinguish what is literature and what is not ?. Science, history, math, and anything else that has nothing to do with: reading, writing, spelling, and grammar. while the nature of literature is quite an open one.  It does many things and accomplishes many purposes.  One such end is that it helps to articulate conditions within human beings that can find relation in the lives of others.  It seeks to relay such narratives so that bonds can be formed with characters, predicaments, and ideas in the hopes of sensing more about our own senses of self.  Literature's nature can take on many forms in the accomplishment of these purposes.  Yet, the idea present is that within all literature there is some level of articulation of a predicament that can be appreciated by many and help more to understand more of themselves, their worlds and settings.  Sometimes, the nature of literature can have a moral purpose, yet other times it might not.  However, its primary nature is to "simply connect" with others in its attempt to detail more of ourselves and our world.  REFERENCES http://www.archive.org/details/theoryofliteratuOOinwell http://arts-sciences.und.edu/summer-institute-of-linguistics/work-papers/_files/dosc/1997-meyer.pdf https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/nature-literature-99669 https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+not+literature&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b 12