Language is an ensemble of ordinary and extra-ordinary texts and contexts. Hence there will not be any scarcity of interest in the similarities and differences between texts and contexts. In a neo-classical era like ours, the prominence will be more to identify the homogeneity rather than the heterogeneity between the measures of language. Hence literariness in itself will be less prominent. However this cannot repress the fact that language is the most primitive device for the humanity and hence will be the weapon for cultivating the future and mining the past for any social epoch!

I would suggest the reading of Derek Attridge's The Singularity of Literature (2004). Here is the link to a well-informed review of this excellent book:

http://www.brynmawr.edu/bmrcl/Winter2006/Attridge.htm

I consider that the groundwork of phenomenological/language-based studies of literature was done by Heidegger in Poetry, Language, Thought. Derrida and the other poststructuralist and phenomenological thinkers followed up, extending and deepening some of the basic insights. I personally think along with this tradition and have never found the phenomenological method wanting in practical criticism. I would also like to mention my recent study of that method itself in a paper entitled ‘Aristotle’s Double Bequest to Literary Theory and Two Discourses of Truth’, which IASET's Global Research Forum has honoured withthe Best Paper Award.  

Dear all,

Thank you for your answers - I will follow up your leads!

With best wishes,

Anja

interesting question Anja,

I believe a process of diluting language to its basic practical functions has seriously undermined the significance of any profound inspirational manifestation of language including literary language , with the overemphasis on communicative application of language and English as a lingua franca , the use of enlightening and refined literary language has been thrown to background.