Critique on “The Possibilities of Paraphrase in the Teaching of Literary Idiom”

Critique on “The Possibilities of Paraphrase in the Teaching of Literary Idiom”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Sunday, May 10, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 171

If Carter (1986) proposed the usage of Labov’s linguistic narrative model to be used in the teaching of narratives, the question regarding poetry and its teaching is still in the air. Can paraphrasing be used to teach the literary idiom in poetry? Nash (1986) proposes the use of paraphrase in the teaching of literary idiom as a way to create a better connection between the reader and the text.

For Wilbur (quoted by Nash, 1986), there is no way of paraphrasing poetic creations in English. Based on Wilbur’s comment, Nash (1986) comments that “paraphrases of the kind suggested here [in Wilbur’s eyes] do not bring a poem more firmly into our possession, and may even mislead us if we rely on them as a form of explanation and commentary.” It is quite understandable that paraphrasing the English classic poets, even when they are translated, there is a great loss in features in their ars poetica.

For Nash (1986), however, “paraphrase may have no critical status, may be utterly ludicrous as an account of what the poem is and does, but it can still be the step that initiates a sophisticated response to language.” And, in order to produce this response, Nash proposes the following: The instructor should begin with (1) proverbs re-phrased since they account for “explanatory/interpretative” poetic language in regular speech, (2) explanatory and mimetic paraphrase that can somehow produce a comic/satirical result, and (3) rewriting prose passages, something that Nash does not explored in his paper. Mostly of what is presented in term of paraphrase is connected to poetry but no narrative prose.

“One well-known feature (…) of literary texts is that while they may intensively state a case, they also have the inherent power to illuminate a universe of parallels, analogies, and variants” (Nash, 1986). If this universe can be illuminated, the possibility to explore poets’ ars poetica is infinite; student comprehension can be well-fostered and strengthened so learners can enjoy literature by mirroring themselves in the lines of what is being read, like in Lacan’s mirror metaphor for literature (Bruss, 1981).

Richard Wilbur stated that “it ought to be impossible satisfactorily to separate ‘ideas’ from their ‘embodiment’” (Nash, 1986), and he could be right. But when it comes to working with non-native speakers, paraphrase can be a great asset for the literature class. If we teachers can have students relate to the text by means of an aesthetic response rather than an efferent one, a better comprehension is now open in front of the literature student’s eyes: Poetry is indeed accessible for anyone.

Bruss, N. (1981), Lacan & Literature. The Massachusetts Review. Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring 1981). pp. 62-92. Retrieved on 2015, April 2, 2015 from the Jstor webpage at http://www.jstor.org/stable/25089121

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

Nash, W. (1986). The Possibilities of Paraphrase in the Teaching of Literary Idiom. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

171 the Possibilities of Paraphrase in the Teaching of Literary Idiom by Jonathan Acuña