Literal and Figurative language in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” by Lewis Carroll

                                            Contents

1. Introduction……………………………………………….……2

  II. Chapter I: Literal and Figurative Language as Complex concepts.

        1.1 Definitions by Different Scholars……………………..….….4

         1.2 Literal Language: the Notion of Literal Meaning……………8

        1.3 The Characteristic Features of the Figurative Language…………………………………………………………..…..11

         1.4 Different Scholars’ Definition of  Figure of Speech…………13

         1.5 Kinds of Figurative Language…………………………..…...16

III. Chapter II: Literal and Figurative Language in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” by Lewis Carroll.

         2.1 “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”- the Most Famous and Enduring Children's Classics…………………………………….……29

     2.2 Figurative Language in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”….

     2.3 Literal Language versus Figurative Language Used in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and their Romanian Translation……………………………………………………………47

IV. Conclusion……………………………………………………….53

V. Bibliography………………………………………………………55

VI. Appendix………………………………………………………….58 
 
 
 

                                Introduction

      The present research paper is entitled “Literal and Figurative language in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”  by Lewis Carroll”. The work is devoted to the study of Lewis Carroll’s use of literal and figurative language in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland”.

   In accordance with all the information gathered for this paper its aim is to be based: to describe the semantic problem of the word in interaction with the literal dictionary and figurative contextual meaning.

   Correspondingly the main objectives of the work are:

1. To define the literal and figurative use of language,
2. To find out the main characteristic features of literal and respectively figurative language,
3. To define the figure of speech,
4. To analyze and describe the main kinds of figure of speech,
5. To analyze examples of figurative and literal use of language in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” by Lewis Carroll and their Romanian translation.

     The theoretical importance of this paper is intended as a thorough introduction to the study of literal language and respectively figurative language, and several kinds of figures of speech and their use in English Literature. It can be used as future investigation of Lewis Carroll’s work.

     The practical importance of the paper under discussion is to introduce the foreign language learners to the study of literature. It can serve as base of practical courses.

     The research paper consists of two chapters. In Chapter I of this paper a great attention is given to the definitions of literal and respectively figurative language and there main characteristic features. The literal interpretation involves simply interpreting each word in the sentence and their combination in terms of its straightforward meaning. The figurative interpretation, by contrast, requires knowledge of an idiom - a figure of speech. Thus a considerable attention, by all means is given to the study of the semantic treatment of figure of speech and its main types in English language.

     English scholars distinguish four kinds of figures of speech. We will only consider the figures of speech of rhetoric or of the art of speaking and writing as they are the most important, really giving to language the construction and style which make it a fitting medium for the intercommunication of ideas.

     This type of figures of speech will certainly be used in Chapter two, as the basis of the analysis of examples of figurative use of language in “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” by Lewis Carroll.

     The research paper begins with a small Introduction to the work, and ends with a Conclusion on what has been accomplished at the end of the research. The paper concludes with an Appendix presenting examples of literal and figurative language from “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” by Lewis Carroll.

     The Bibliography used consists of 45 sources, from The National Library of The Republic of Moldova and the World Wide Web.

     During the work on the present paper several research methods were used:

• Analysis (used mainly in Chapter I);
• Synthesis (used mainly in  Chapter II);
• Statistic method (used mainly in Appendix);
• Bibliographical method (library research).

     The theme of the paper is rather actual, because it may open ways to an interesting analysis of figurative and literal language used in literary works due to the large variety of figures of speech and author’s creative usage of them.  
 
 
 
 
 
 

     Chapter I:  Literal and Figurative Language as Complex Concepts.

     1.1 Definitions by Different Scholars.

     Classically, the notions of literalness and figurativity are viewed as pertaining directly to language - words have literal meanings, and can be used figuratively when specific figures of speech cue appropriate interpretation processes. Indeed, this approach superficially seems to account for the two interpretations described above. The literal (and one would hope, less likely) interpretation involves simply interpreting each word in the sentence and their combination in terms of its straightforward meaning - the glue is literal glue and the seats are literal seats.

     The figurative interpretation, by contrast, requires knowledge of an idiom - a figure of speech. This idiom has a particular form, using the words glued, to, and seat(s), with a possessive pronoun or other noun phrase indicating who was glued to their seat(s) in the middle. It also carries with it a particular meaning: the person or people described were in rapt attention. Thus the figurative interpretation of the sentence differs from the literal one in that the meaning to be taken from it is not built up compositionally from the meanings of words included in the utterance. Rather, the idiom imposes a non-compositional interpretation. As a result, the meaning of the whole can be quite distinct from the meanings of the words included within the idiom. This distinction between idiomaticity and compositionality is an important component of the classical figurative-literal distinction. A consequence of equating figurativity with particular figures of speech is that figurative language can be seen as using words in ways that differ from their real, literal meaning.

     While this classical notion of figurative and literal language may seem sensible, it leads to a number of incorrect and inconsistent claims about the relation between literal and figurative language.

     The study of figurative language understanding has always experienced an identity crisis. Unlike many topics in experimental psycholinguistics, such as syntactic parsing and lexical ambiguity resolution, where scholars generally agree on the main questions, figurative language scholars have pursued many avenues in their studies. For instance, some scholars view figurative language as just another kind of verbal material to explore when context affects default literal processing to create figurative meaning. Other scholars explore the pragmatic functions of figurative language, such as why people speak or write figuratively and the effects such language has on listeners or readers. Another difference is that some scholars propose broad theories that may apply to many kinds of figurative language (e.g., metaphor, metonymy, irony, proverbs), whereas others concentrate on the details of how a particular type of trope is interpreted (e.g., metaphor). A final group of scholars focus on the possible connections between figurative language and human  vices for communication, but as reflecting pervasive figurative schemes of thought.

     Let us see the definitions of literal and figurative languages. In traditional analysis, words in literal expressions denote what they mean according to common or dictionary usage, while words in figurative expressions connote add layers of meaning. When the human ear or eye receives the message, the mind must interpret the data to convert it into meaning. This involves the use of a cognitive framework which is made up of memories of all the possible meanings that might be available to apply to the particular words in their context. This set of memories will give prominence to the most common or literal meanings, but also suggest reasons for attributing different meanings, e.g., the reader understands that the author intended it to mean something different. 
 For example, the sentence, "The ground is thirsty and hungry.", mixes the usages. The ground is not alive and therefore does not need to drink or have the essence of life to be able to obtain the characteristics needed to eat. Readers can immediately understand that a literal interpretation is not appropriate and confidently interpret the words to mean "The ground is dry.": the stimulus that would trigger the sensation of thirst in a living organism. However, the statement, "When I first saw her, my soul began to quiver.", is more difficult to interpret. It may mean "When I first saw her, I began to panic", or "I felt in love with her" or something else entirely. Whereas the ground's thirst can only sensibly refer to its dryness, the soul may quiver for a whole range of feelings, including mutually exclusive ones. Only someone familiar with the speaker's feelings could accurately interpret this statement. A different way of expressing the difficulty is: without a context, a few words can only be given a provisional set of meanings, the most appropriate only becoming apparent when more information is made available. 
           Raymond Gibbs, a cognitive psychologist and cognitive linguist, identifies a number of different definitions of literal meaning assumed within the cognitive science literature:

     Conventional literality, in which literal usage is contrasted with poetic usage, exaggeration, embellishment, indirectness, and so on.

     Nonmetaphorical literality, or directly meaningful language, in which one word (concept) is never understood in terms of a second word (or concept).

     Truth conditional literality, or language that is capable of “fitting the world”(that is, referring to objectively existing objects or of being objectively true or false).

     Context-free literality, in which the literal meaning of an expression is its meaning [independent of any communicative situation.[12,75] 

     Figurative language is the language that uses words or expressions with a meaning that is different from the literal interpretation, language in which figures of speech such as metaphors and similes freely occur.

     Anne Kürschner, in her work “Figurative Language in 'The Rudy Elmenhurst Story'”, mentions:

     “ Figurative language means for me that for instance words or specific actions are taken out of their correct meaning. Instead, they are used to express something else. This generates an effect which the author intends, that is to raise the reader’s interest. In my opinion it is the usage and strength of figurative language that gives a story its power, as it creates images in reader’s minds.” [20,2]

     Classical and traditional linguistics by some counts identified more than two hundred and fifty different figures of speech. More recently, some have reduced the list to more manageable proportions; others have claimed to be able to classify all figurative language as either metaphor or metonymy. Easier definition- Figurative language or speech contains images. The writer or speaker describes something through the use of unusual comparisons, for effect, interest, and to make things clearer. The result of using this technique is the creation of interesting images. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

                   

               1.2 Literal Language: the Notion of Literal Meaning.

     Things which are commonsense, almost by definition, do not bear comment: one never  has  to  articulate  what  one may  everywhere  assume.  'Literal meaning'  is  a commonsense concept—a sort of first principle of meaning itself. It is the simplest sort of meaning: direct, original, unembellished and unadorned, opposed to all varieties of figure, derivation, or stylization.  It is the sense one gets by taking words "in their natural or customary meanings, and applying the ordinary rules of grammar" [43,607]. It requires no fancy inferences, no imaginative leaps, no feats of insight. Literal meaning resides,  so  to  speak,  in  the  words  themselves—both  theoretically,  as  the  coded semantic  contents  of  linguistic  forms,  and  figuratively,  via  a  chain  of  associations running from the (literal) letters of a word to the sounds and ideas they represent. As a common  sense  concept,  'literal  meaning'  seems  not  just  familiar,  but  somehow necessary. Without some notion of literal meaning it is unclear what it would mean for anyone to mean what they say, or how anyone else could ever understand them.

     'Literal meaning' has been a concept at the heart of English literacy for almost as long as  there has been an English  literature. At  least for  the  last four hundred years, literate  speakers of English have used  the words  literal and literally  to  talk  about linguistic meaning. Nowadays, a basic ability to distinguish between various sorts of "literal" and "figurative" meanings is essential to the careful reading of most English texts—novels, plays, poems, history, scripture, statutory law, and almost anything that might count as literature. Children as young as six years old may grasp the essential distinction here, and by adolescence many,  if not most, students will have  received explicit  instruction  on  the  distinctions  between  literal  meaning  and  figures  like metaphor,  hyperbole,  and  irony.  In  this  context,  one  comes  to  count  on  a  notion without even  thinking about  it. With  'literal meaning' what we count on  is a way of understanding what we are doing when we read, write, and speak to one another—it is a basic part of our commonsense frame for communicative events.

     Still for all  that,  'literal meaning'  is not an easy notion  to define.

     The  commonsense  notion  of  literal  meaning  fits  into  a  larger  folk-theoretic understanding of  the relations between  language,  thought and reality. Turner provides a pithy, if somewhat unsympathetic summary of this view:

     “The real world is exhaustively literal: literal language refers to it; literal

concepts mirror the literal world; literal language evokes literal concepts...

Separate from all this, so the folk theory runs, there are mental imaginative

connections that are false; they are expressed in figurative, non-literal

language or literally false language; we must transform the meaning of this

language in order to arrive at interpretations of it that can be literal and true.”[37,147]

  Turner  probably  finds  this  view  unsympathetic  because  it  ignores  the  role  of  the imagination in ordinary everyday meaning construction, and it assumes a rather stark opposition between truth, reason and literality on the one side, and fancy, figuration, and  falsity,  on  the  other. But  the  assumption  and  the  folk  theory  are  in  fact  quite widely held, and they have deep roots in the philosophy of language and mind. Lakoff  &  Johnson  refer  to  theories  like  this  as  "literalist  theories  of meaning," and they cite Aristotle as the first to articulate such a theory. In a literalist theory,  terms  designate  ideas,  ideas  characterize  essences  in  the world,  and  literal meaning  itself  consists  in  the  use  of  terms  "to  properly  designate what  they  are conventionally supposed to designate".[21,382]        

       The  three-way  relation  that connects  the structure of  the world  (essences)  to  the structure of  the mind  (ideas)  through  the  structure of  language  (terms, or  signifiers generally) provides  the  foundation for a great deal of both  folk  theoretic and expert thinking about language and thought. The commonest assumption is that the relations here are all direct, transparent and transitive-that  language accurately conveys our thoughts from one speaker to another, that our thoughts accurately reflect the structure of the world, and that the world is truly described by language.

     As Locke points out, it is easy to imagine that if such direct relations between language, thought, and reality did not hold, then communication itself might be impossible: “And hence it is, that Men are so forward to suppose, that the abstract Ideas they have in their Minds, are such, as agree to the Things existing without them, to which they are referred; and are the same also, to which the Names they give them, do by the Use and Propriety of that Language belong. For without this double Conformity of their Ideas, they find they should both think amiss of Things in themselves, and talk of them unintelligibly to others.”[24,410] This "double Conformity of ideas" is fundamental to any correspondence theory of truth,  and  it  provides  a  very  good  foundation,  since  to  deny  its  assumptions  is tantamount either  to denying  that people understand each other when  they speak, or that our understandings stand  in any constant relation  to  the objective world. Taylor later affirmed that “Locke himself rejected the double conformity, and so concluded against common sense, that ordinary speakers regularly do fail to communicate”[36,77].

     Nonetheless, one needn't be either a communicational skeptic or a  radical  relativist  to  realize  that  the connection between words and reality is often convoluted and indirect: any cognitive psychologist or lexical semanticist can tell you that. The  fact  is  that  many  of  our  most  commonplace  conceptual  categories  are figuratively structured-most commonly by metaphor or analogy. This is why we can talk about and understand things like atoms in terms of solar systems[10,107], verbal arguments in terms of sports or war[13,84], and time in terms of motion through space[22,45].

                    
 
 
 
 
 

       1.3The Characteristic Features of the Figurative Language.

     Prototypical Figurative Language will be characterized as language use where, from the speaker’s point of view, conventional constraints are deliberately infringed in the service of communication, and from the hearer’s point of view, a satisfactory (i.e. relevant) interpretation can only be achieved if conventional constraints on interpretation are overridden by contextual ones.

     What is the motivation for figurative uses of language? Here we need to distinguish the speaker’s motivation for using an expression figuratively, and the hearer’s motivation for assigning a figurative construal to an expression. Briefly, a speaker uses an expression figuratively when he/she feels that no literal use will produce the same effect. The figurative use may simply be more attention-grabbing, or it may permit the conveyance of new concepts. As far as hearer is concerned, the most obvious reason for opting for figurative construal is the fact that no equally accessible and relevant literal construal is available.

     In classical rhetoric and poetics there is an inherent contrast between figurative or ornamental usage on the one hand and literal or plain and conventional usage on the other; in this contrast, figures of speech are regarded as embellishments that deviate from the “ordinary”  uses of language. The 16^th century rhetorician George Puttenham described the contrast as follows:

     “As figures be the instrument of ornament in eury language, so be they also in a sort abuses or rather trespasses in speech, because they passé the ordinary limits of common vtterance, and be occupied of purpose to deceiu the eare and also the minde, drawing it form plainesse and simplicitie to a certain doubleness, whereby our talk is the more guileful and abusing, for what else is your Metaphore but an inuersion of sence by transport; your allegorie but a dublicitie of meaning or dissimulation vnder covert and dark intendments?”¹