Critique on “Linguistic
Models, Language, and Literariness”
By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano
Saturday, May 9, 2015
Twitter: @jonacuso
Post
169
“Language
and literature are separate systems
or phenomena” (Carter, 1986), but there is no reason why linguistics-borrowed
models cannot help the reader/learner to better comprehend literary texts and
their literariness. Carter (1986) also argues that “linguistic models provide
the best means of sensitization to and acquisition of the relevant procedures” that
can help teachers organize their teaching of literature to guide their pupils
to grasp the meaning being conveyed in narratives.
How
can literature be enjoyed by pupils? As Brumfit (1986) has posited, “the
profound pleasure of reading comes partly from an experience which is
simultaneously individual and communal.” And this experience linked to the
pleasure of reading can be achieved, as Carter (1986) proposes, by means of
language teaching strategies, which has been labeled in ELT literature as prediction, cloze procedure, summary, forum,
and guided re-writing. But to
spice up any of these strategies, Carter (1986) goes further by incorporating
Labov’s linguistic model while working on oral narratives told in Black English
Vernacular, which is indeed a sound idea if Labov’s principles are respected.
What
did Carter do with Labov’s model of narrative? Basically, and for teaching
purposes, Carter (1986) simplifies the overall framework for the study of
narrative that Labov used in 1967 and in 1972 (Labov, 2003). What was
discovered by Labov (2003) and his colleagues is that narratives do contain an abstract (story summary), orientation (setting and actors), complicating action (temporal
organization), evaluation
(juxtaposition of real and potential events), validation (credibility, not used by Carter), resolution (the result of what happened), transformation (subjective events insertion), and termination (coda). If what Labov
documented in his research regarding narratives is the way we tell or listen to
stories, it does make sense to explore this approach to engage students into
reading a literary piece that is connected individual and communal experiences.
An
approach like the one proposed by Carter can be quite productive in an
Introductory Course to Narrative or in groups whose English level is around the
CEF B1+. With such level, learners can “explore the extent to which readers
respond (or are invited by the author/narrator to respond) to the absence of
‘expected’ features of orientation” (Carter, 1986), like the ones outlined by
Labov (2003). It is the teachers’ teaching expertise and literary knowledge
that can help them plan accordingly to engage learners into enjoying literature
rather than find it a punishment.
Brumfit,
C. (1986). Wider Reading for Better
Reading: An alternative approach to teaching literature. Literature and
Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP
Carter,
R. (1986). Linguistic Models, Language,
and Literariness: Study strategies in the teaching of literature to foreign
students. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter.
Oxford: OUP
Labov,
W. (2003). Uncovering the Event Structure
of Narrative. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and
Linguistics. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. pp. 63-83
Saturday, May 09, 2015
Post a Comment