Going around Hanoi and trying to speak Vietnamese (with my limited vocabulary and grammatical resources) has made me acutely aware of the social contexts in which language operates. In a restaurant, certain kinds of words and sentences are used; in a shop, different words and sentences. In fact, this makes it easier for me to communicate because I know what to expect in different places. I've also learned to expect several stock questions: How long have I been in Vietnam? How old am I? What work do I do? What country am I from? And because I expect these questions, I don't have to think quite so hard, but can fall back into language I already know. Such acts of communication always take place within some social context. Aren't poems the same, in some respects. In poetry, the shop or restaurant might be replaces with a mode or genre -- an elegy or a sonnet. So the conventions of conversation or poetry are not something -- at least initially -- to be gotten outside of, but something to be used. The actual language of a conversation or a poem can only be extracted from the context by an act of critical violence, an act of Abstraction, to adopt Blake's terminology. But surely we don't want to be limited to conventional subjects and modes. True enough. I offer my observation only to make the point that such conventional situations can carry a good deal of satisfaction and even emotional power. They ought not be sneered at or avoided in favor of novelty or originality, I think. Such moments of mutuality can be deeply significant. Poems, like my primitive conversations, start in such places and such moments.
Cross-posted at Sharp Sand.