Critique on “Is Literature Language? Or is Language Literature?”

Literature, Teaching, Teaching Practices 0 comments

Critique on “Is Literature Language? Or is Language Literature?”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 165

“Pupil’s responses to literature … is parallel with the value of the pupil’s work within other subject areas” (Burke & Brumfit, 1986). The one problem with literature is how it has been taught all along, without a very clear methodology (Long, 1986) that really directs both instructors and learners in contexts where English is not a native language “by treating it as a completely separate subject area from English language” (Burke & Brumfit, 1986).

Students do face trouble understanding literature. Burke & Brumfit (1986) agree on the fact that difficulties may arise “from ignorance of the language being used, of the ideas being used, or of the form being used.” To put Burke & Brumfit’s (1986) argument simple, learners may lack the necessary linguistic, conceptual, and formal tradition to cope with literary texts. And the search for an aesthetic response, rather than an efferent reaction (McKay, 1986), is not going to happen.

What seems to be the problem with Burke & Brumfit’s argument? To start with, the authors do not account for the similarity or difference of problems young and adult EFL/ESL learners may face in working with literature; they concentrated on analyzing what children can experience in class. What is intrinsic and important to the teaching of literature is what Burke & Brumfit (1986) point out when they state that literature is “enriched not merely at the level of language, but also at the level of form, structure of story, paragraphing, concept, and so on. And there is no reason why this cannot be done with young and adult EFL/ESL learners. This is a great way to activate the reader’s schemata to enrich reading.

To make the teaching of literature in the EFL/ESL class effective, certain conditions must be met. For Burke & Brumfit (1986), it is necessary to “treat the literary tradition … as a literary and not solely a national or linguistic tradition,” to understand that responses proceed “from an awareness of relationships between book,” to comprehend the need to “grade the skills necessary” to cope with literary pieces, and to recognize that “literature can be enriched by skillful use of background material.” If these principles are aligned with the necessary linguistic, conceptual, and formal tradition to cope with literary texts, a literature for language learning can be aesthetically introduced and used.

“Is Literature Language? Or is Language Literature?” From my point of view, the inquiry is not solved! Literature is not language, but uses it as a vehicle to convey ideas; language is not literature though words are used to convey one’s schemata. Literature “cannot be read in a vacuum” (Burke & Brumfit, 1986), so language is needed to cope with one’s former experiences.

Burke, S. & Brumfit, C. (1986). Is Literature Language? or Is Language Literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Long, M. (1986). A Feeling for Language: The multiple values of teaching literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

McKay, S. (1986). Literature in the ESL Classroom. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP