TEACHING LITERARY TEXTS`
CONSTANTIN CRISTINA,
Colegiul “Stefan Odobleja”,
Craiova, jud. Dolj
What is a literary text?
In literary theory, a text is any object that can be „read,” whether this object is a work of literature, a street sign, an arrangement of buildings on a city block, or styles of clothing. It is a coherent set of signs that transmits some kind of informative message.[1] This set of symbols is considered in terms of the informative message’s content, rather than in terms of its physical form or the medium in which it is represented.
Within the field of literary criticism, „text” also refers to the original information content of a particular piece of writing; that is, the „text” of a work is that primal symbolic arrangement of letters as originally composed, apart from later alterations, deterioration, commentary, translations, paratext, etc. Therefore, when literary criticism is concerned with the determination of a „text,” it is concerned with the distinguishing of the original information content from whatever has been added to or subtracted from that content as it appears in a given textual document (that is, a physical representation of text).
Since the history of writing predates the concept of the „text”, most texts were not written with this concept in mind. Most written works fall within a narrow range of the types described by text theory. The concept of „text” becomes relevant if and when a „coherent written message is completed and needs to be referred to independently of the circumstances in which it was created.”
When we read, we actively infer a text world ‘behind’ the text. By ‘text world’ I mean the context, scenario or type of reality that is evoked in our minds during reading and that (we conclude) is referred to by the text. all texts and text-types – be they literary or non-literary -.are influenced by the context of culture in which they are produced.
McKay (1982) contends “it is easy to view any attention to literature as unnecessary” (p.529) and enumerates three of the most common counterarguments regarding the payoffs of using literature in the language classroom:
1.Literature’s structural complexity, and unique and sometimes nonstandard use of language preclude the teaching of grammar which is one of the main goals of language teachers. This point is also recapitulated by Savvidou (2004) who states that “the creative use of language in poetry and prose often deviates from the conventions and rules which govern standard, non-literary discourse…”.
2. Literature has nothing to offer to EAP (English for Academic Purposes) and ESP (English for Specific Purposes) courses where the focus is on meeting the students’ academic and professional goals.
3. Literature is highly culturally charged, hence its conceptual difficulty and its hindrance, rather than facilitation, of learning the target language. Arguments against the use of literature in language classrooms, however, are by a wide margin exceeded by those arguments which go for it. This is understandable if one is aware of the assumptions and views current theory and research in language acquisition, teaching and learning have put forth, and of the potential of literature to realize them in practice.
As far as the teaching of grammar is concerned, research on the concept of communicative competence, capitalizing on correct, appropriate and effective language behavior (Ellis, 1994), and the distinction made between language usage and language use both justify the use of literary texts in language classrooms. The reason is literature can be thought of as a field which can be plowed for developing an understanding of language usage through different methods of consciousness raising and form-focused instruction regarding particular grammatical structures, word forms and common expressions. Much more, however, can be gained by exploring the way such atomistic aspects of language are used in discourse, i.e. at a supra esentential level. This resonates with contemporary beliefs in the significance of the context of language use which is most delicately developed in literary texts.
Gajdusek (1988) states that literature is both literally and figuratively decontextualized. However, instead of viewing it as a drawback which devalues literary texts among other language learning materials, he asserts that the context-reduced nature of literature entails two other features which make it a perfect means for developing communicative competence in learners:
- Internal coherence: Each line interrelates with other lines to create an internally coherent meaning. It is exactly this self-sufficiency of a literary text which engages the reader in interpretation, meaning negotiation and the generation of coherent discourse-based meaning, hence literature’s highly interactive demands on learners.
2. Conscious patterning: The language of a literary text is fashioned into recurring patterns of sounds, meanings and structures, connecting intellectual, emotional and physical experiences. Discovering, exploring and appreciating these patterns would create a lot of reader-text interaction which is an essential feature of communicative and interactional competence
Introducing literary texts into the classroom
It is generally admitted that in order to succeed as a language learning asset, literature must first effect a literary experience in learners. The point is some practitioners believe this literary experience won’t be accomplished unless the reader has already mastered the rich vocabulary, complex syntactic structures and underlying cultural assumptions of the text, and if he has, literature would be of little value as a language learning device; simply put, the use of literature for learning a language would preclude experiencing literature as literature.
More and more of us live in an image world, an icon world, a movie and TV world, an Internet world, and even when we do still live in a word-and-print world we are more likely to see or hear words and print in soundbite form than in literary form. Even students who are only ten years younger than their youngest teachers will have been raised in an Internet world that was not available to those teachers when they were that age.
What does this mean for us as teachers? In truth, nobody knows what the full implications of our societies’ move from a word-and-print to an image-and-icon world means – discussion of the topic is moving full bore – but there are some obvious implications for teachers of Literature. At the least, it means that most literature students will not be voracious readers. They may not even be what most teachers would call avid readers.
A recent report from the USA (Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America) summarises the situation ‘in a single sentence: literary reading in America is not only declining rapidly among all groups, but the rate of decline has accelerated, especially among the young’ (National Endowment for the Arts, 2004: Preface, vii). Just as writers of essays or novels must know who their audience is, so teachers must have a feel for where their students are, what world(s) they live in, and this means that all of us, experienced and inexperienced teachers alike, need to take our students’ comparatively lesser degree of saturation in prints and words into account when we teach literature.
Arthur (1968, p.199) states “second language teachers interested in using literature in their classes must be aware of how literature can teach second language skills while, at the same time, retaining its literary value for second language learners.” In the first place, this goal can be achieved by selecting the right kind of text. Three suggestions have been put forth to get around the problem of linguistic and cultural complexity (McKay, 1892):
Using simplified texts: The use of simplified texts is generally frowned upon on the grounds that simplification reduces the information density, cohesion and, in consequence, readability of a text. However, upon browsing the literature, examples of the successful use of simplified texts in the language classroom can be found. Zoreda and Vivaldo-Lima (2008, pp. 22-23) state “there is a renewed interest in integrating graded literary materials such as simplified novels that are written specially for beginning and intermediate level students”. They report their success with the use of simplified novels along with the novels’ audio and film versions to offer scaffolded instruction on linguistic and intercultural skills.
��� Using easy texts: The question with using easy texts is what ‘easy’ means. According to McKay (1982), although there are readability counts to determine the lexical and syntactic complexity of a text, there are no generally agreed-upon standards to determine the complexity of a work of literature in terms of its underlying cultural assumptions, characterization, plot and its other literary qualities. The selection of easy texts is, therefore, mostly based on intuition.
��� Using young adult texts: These texts can benefit a wide range of learners because of their inherent simplicity, both linguistic and literary. Such texts, according to McKay (1982), are characterized by brevity, a small cast of characters, stylistic simplicity and such relevant themes as personal growth. However, the problem with the use of such texts for adult classes is that adult learners might not identify with themes of interest to young adults, and their motivation and willingness to interact with the text may suffer
Although the selection of texts is of utmost significance, the way the text is approached by both teachers and learners and the nature of tasks and activities that learners engage in have a more decided influence on the success with which literature is employed in the language classroom.
REFERENCES:
Akyel, A. and E. Yalcin (1990). Literature in the ESL class: A study of goal-achievement incongruence. ELT Journal, 44/3:174-180.
• Bouman, L. (1983). Who’s afraid of poetry? Modern English Teacher, 10/3: 14-19.
• Brumfit, C.J. (1982). Reading skills and the language of literature in a foreign language. In Brumfit, C. J. and R. A. Carter (1986): 184-190.
• Brumfit, C. J. (1985). Language and literature teaching: From practice to principle. Oxford: Pergamon. • Brumfit, C. J. and R. A. Carter (eds.) (1986). Literature and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
•Cai, Mingshui (2002). Multicultural literature for children and young adults: Reflections on critical issues. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; cited in Mohammadzadeh (2009).
• Carter, R. A. (ed.) (1982). Language and literature: An introductory reader in stylistics. London: Allen and Unwin.
• Carter, R. and M. N. Long (1990). Testing literature in EFL classes: tradition and innovation. ELT Journal, 44/3: 215-221.
• Carter, R. and McRae, J. (1996). Language, literature and the learner: Creative classroom practice. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
• Carter, R., R. Walker and C. J. Brumfit (1989). Literature and the learner: Methodological approaches (ELT Documents 130). London: Modern English Publications and The British Council.
• Carter, R., A. Goddard, D. Reah, K. Sanger and M. Bowring (1997). Working with texts: A core book for language analysis. London: Routledge.
• Collie, J. and S. Slater (1987). Literature in the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cummings, M. and R. Simmons. (1983). The language of literature. Oxford: Pergamon. International Journal of English and Education ISSN: 2278-4012, Volume:2, Issue:3, JULY 2013 378 Copyright © International Journal of English and Education | www.ijee.org
• Duff, A. and A. Maley. (1990). Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press
• Eagleton, T. (2000). The idea of culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Suntem cenzurați online/pe rețelele de socializare. Zilnic, puteți accesa site-ul pentru a vă informa.
- Contactați-ne oricând.
- Dacă apreciați munca noastră, vă invităm să dați un ,,Like” și să distribuiți pagina de Facebook (conținut exclusiv).
- Pentru o presă independentă, sprijiniți-ne cu o donație. Vă mulțumim!
MAGAZIN CRITIC – ziar online cultural, conservator. Contează pe ȘTIRI ce contează!