Critique on “Simple Text and Reading Text”

Literature, Teaching, Teaching Practices 0 comments

Critique on “Simple Text and Reading Text”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 166

Should students in the literature class be provided with the classics as they are, or a simplified version, or even a graded version? As Vincent (1986) posits, “the reader must bring to the text linguistic, conceptual, and cultural understanding of a high order.” If learners lack these kinds of understanding, they are bound to face a lot of problems in trying to deal with the classic English literary pieces. And what about when we have learners who are in EFL or ESL programs? Can they read the classics?

“For the foreign reader, literary text will usually be even more linguistically difficult” than for a regular native speaker (Vincent 1986). For McKay (1986), that literary works need to be carefully chosen, and not at random. And though experts have been talking about this for ages, it looks like we have not found the right books to teach literature correctly. It is for this reason that Vincent (1986) claims that simplified versions should not be used, and that classics must be avoided in an early developmental stage of language learning. And the use of literary pieces should not only be linked to classics but to translations of mother-tongue texts or lighter, more accessible literary productions.

Vincent (1986) proposes a systematic way of working with reading as a prelude to the teaching of literature. As a first stage, it is proposed that students get exposed to “extensive use of simple texts” (Vincent, 1986) to really develop learner’s capacity to read in the target language. As a second stage, Vincent (1986) suggests “lighter works of fiction” and perhaps “a couple of abridged classics or fairly reputable works of the second rank.” Additionally, the author urges the use of “simple texts” and non-fiction works that can help pupils develop their reading capacity, which can be a brain gym prior to getting into the classics. What I suggest in this section, and what Vincent does not account for, is the use of storytelling to equip learners with schemata, aesthetic responses, and why not efferent reading.

“Simplicity … enables the learner to respond to … works of literature, not as reading puzzles” (Vincent, 1986). Simplified or abridged classics do lose a lot of its essence when they are modified to fit students’ language level. Instead, storytelling along readings to prepare learners for more complex reading should be used. As McKay (1986) suggests, the success in the study of literature rely on the literary pieces that are chosen. It cannot be done at random and the classics at a beginning learning stage can be counterproductive rather than profitable for the pupil. Literature must be enjoyed and not a punishment for the learners.