40. L. Dolezel, Statistical Theory of Poetic Language (Prague Studies in Math. Linguistics), p. 98. "The main distinction is to be made between two functional languages:
communicative and poetic . . . the function of communicative language was described as the tendency toward the expression of the extralingual reality (referent), whereas the poetic function is the tendency to move the sign itself into the centre of attention .... In general communicative language is characterized by the automatization of linguistic means and rules. On the contrary poetic language, in order to draw attention to the language sign itself, has to destroy or at least to shift the conventional relationships between sign and referent. It has to use linguistic means and rules, in an unusual, creative manner,'
41. See R. Gnoli, op. cite, pp, xxx-xxxi for detailed discussion.
42. Arturo B. Fallico, Art and Existentialism^ p. 21.
43. V. Raghavan, Some Concepts of AlankaraSastra^ p. 54.
"Albeit the importance of form, one should not misunderstand the rhetoric as poetry. It is possible to sacrifice poetry at the altar of figure. There is such a thing as aucitya appropriateness, harmony and proportion, which is the ultimate beauty in poetry. The final ground of reference for this aucitya^ the thing with reference to which, we shall speak of other things as being inappropriate, is the foil of poetry, rasa."
44. Misra, "Rasa Siddhanta, Katpana^ Aug., 1967 :
^Rasa experience can not be had through words and their conventional meanings, directly a sentence like T! love yo^ by itself does not stimulate a rasa experience and yet this experience has to come through a function of the language. It was therefore essential that a higher linguistic function be introduced to serve as a medium of this experience ."
45« S. Kuppaswami Sastri, op. cit», p. 23.