 |
 |
Briefly - I've already deleted the post that's prompted this one but it referred to the ownership of language by the status quo (obviously a paraphrase) - my difficulty with this position is this - and I think it would be useful to speak of the English language rather than the rather more nebulous 'language' - How can the English language be said to be owned by anyone ? the crucial point is that there is no such entity but rather a variety of dialects, of areas (can't think of the right word) of language and one way poets can challenge the status quo is by avoiding 'poetic language' and the traditional forms. The Language poets are only one example of those who have, with varying degrees of success, incorporated areas of language not considered poetic. Which leads me to another point - language (English or otherwise) is not an abstract but only exists as it is used, thus (for example) the language of the masters may be subverted by the usage of their servants, the overlays of meaning on so many English words is an indicator of this. As, perhaps, is irony - a mode of thought and thus of speech and writing. Poets can also subvert orthodoxy by the way they use language. Geraldine ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%