om generation to generation, and over time the language can change considerably. In any case, there are variations that might be apparent if one village or region were compared to another or one social class within a village or region were compared to another. Language exists in variation within different subunits of a society as well, and much of the variation is embodied in literature.
F.R. Leavis indicates some of the strains in literary criticism that prevailed for a long time prior to the structuralist period. He refers to the perspective of the Romantic critical tradition, for instance, which held that there was a set of ideas and attitudes about literary creation which laid emphasis on inspiration and the individual genius. This strain was attacked by T.S. Eliot, who places his stress on things other than individual talent and original impulse. A new recognition developed of the importance of the language itself, as Leavis notes with reference to William Blake:
Blake uses the English language, and not one of his own invention; and to say that he uses it is not to say that it is for him a mere instrument. His individuality has developed in terms of the language, with the ways of experiencing, as well as of handling experience, that it involves.
Eliot suggests a continuity that is to be found in relating the works of today to the works of the past, in relating a work to a tradition. Part of this historical sense is a sense of language and how it relates to the different time periods in which it is found.
The structuralist approach to literature owes much to linguistic studies and to ideas about language in general. Northrop Frye applies the structuralist approach to Lycidas by Milton and finds that there are certain principles involved which should be applied to all works and which help the critic understand the shaping of the language into this particular structure and form. He says there are four creativ...