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
No comments:
Post a Comment