Language Through Literature g5l4a

The Question under consideration is an old one. Can literature help one to use language better? Is literature a viable source for acquisition of language skills? The answer is a direct yes, as literature also uses the medium of language to express itself. However, there could be few who may not endorse this view and they may also have valid reasons to defend their standpoint. One can also take a completely different stand as that taken by Paul Simpson in his very influential book Language Through Literature: An Introduction (1917). Simpson too agrees that literary discourse is the vintage point through which language is better learnt. Though the propositions are same, Simpson bases his proposition on somewhat unique premise. He argues that literature does help to develop ones linguistic competence. However, the reason he gives is that it is because there is no difference between literary language and ordinary daily language. In fact he goes as far as to say that there is no thing as ‘literary language.’ Let us observe a brief extract from his book to understand his point: PAUL SIMPSON’S VIEW “An immediate objection to my argument is a commonsensical one: surely the language of 'great' literature must, by definition, be 'literary'. What is the language of Shakespeare if not the very apogee of 'literary language'? Yet this type of reasoning is a far cry from providing a definition of literary language. It is a bit like asking someone to define classical music and being told that it's what Mary has in her CD collection. Being told where to find something does not tell you what it is. Writers like Chaucer and Joyce are acknowledged literary giants, and so, the argument runs, their language must be by imputation literary. However, one would still be hard put to specify a list of their words and constructions that have inherently literary significance in all contexts of use. Literary language has no 'ontology': has no permanent or fixed existence. 'Literary' is a quality conferred upon texts not according to what they are but according to what they do. It is, if anything, a functional description, not an ontological one. Consider for a moment an analogy which though curious, is genuinely parallel. Crows, cormorants and ring-doves are clearly all species of bird. Their status as birds is ontological in so far as it is stable, fixed and real. However, an ornithologist friend once told me that under certain circumstances all three are considered 'pests'. Now the attribute 'pest' is not an inherent characteristic of these animals: it is an

attribute which they acquire in specific contexts. In fact, they can by implication cease to be pests as circumstances dictate. The same principle applies to language that is commonly regarded as ‘literary’; the property of 'literariness' is not an immutable or permanent quality of language. It is not something that texts are: rather, it is something conferred upon them according to what they do. And that texts can also cease to have 'literary' value is borne out by the fact that the canon of 'great' literature has changed dramatically over the centuries under the influence of cultural and critical tastes. Denying the existence of literary language as a discrete category of language might seem like the debunking of literature as a discipline. It smacks perhaps of a churlishly reductive attack from English language quarters leveled at literary criticism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real intention is to emphasize the full panoply of linguistic resources that are available to writers, not to foreclose on its creative possibilities. In fact, the real reductionist position is the one which upholds the existence of a 'literary language'. Setting parameters around a discourse automatically confines that discourse. And may even reduce it to a set of clichés. The argument therefore is that literary discourse, rather than manifesting a uniform language variety, derives its effectiveness from its exploitation of the entire linguistic repertoire. Literary communication thrives not on the presence of a clearly defined linguistic code but on the very absence of such a code.” The same line of thinking is seen here as well: “It is difficult to make a linguistic distinction between literature and the rest of language. By this we mean that, despite a widespread assumption to the contrary, we know of no particular linguistic feature or set of linguistic features which are found in literature but not other kinds of text.” (Short and Candlin, 1986)

LEARNING LANGUAGE THROUGH LITERATURE Though such kinds of arguments are well taken, as a literature student, one immediately jumps to raise a counter question to Simpson. If there really lies no difference between literary language and ordinary language, why can’t a layman become Shakespeare? What if not the expression makes Shakespeare “not of an age but for all time?” and one could go on raising quite valid points. Literary use of language is not necessarily as the ordinary language, though the basic components remain the same, a more reasonable stand to take would be to say that literature and language are at the same time inter- and independent. Both complement each other. Life, language, and literature are inter-related. In every society the simultaneous existence of these three entities can be seen. Life provides the base then language evolves and using the language literary works are created. To create a literary work, the writer should have a command over the language and have an eagle eye on the day-to-day events in life. This actually makes the use of literature more relevant to learn a language as one is the natural corollary of the other. In fact literature is one of the best mediums through which mastery over language can be achieved. At the very outset let observe the given example:

Shadwell alone my perfect image bears, Mature in dullness from his tender years: Shadwell alone of all my sons is he Who stands confirmed in full stupidity The rest to some faint meaning makes pretense, But Shadwell never deviates into sense… (Mac Flecknoe, 1682)

The reason behind giving this example is to prove a point and the point is that literature enables a person to write and speak, as Alexander Pope said, “What oft was thought but never so well expressed.” Literature has an added advantage too, that is, people have an inherent ability to understand the basic story-telling conventions irrespective of age,

religion, caste and creed. This helps us enjoy literature and appreciate the meaning it conveys. It is this implicit competence that can be taken advantage of in using literature to teach language. It is a natural thing that when a reader reads a piece of literature, he actively participates in the story and he questions, wonders, gets angry, cries during the process of reading, All these feelings exemplify the readers’ participation. Literature thus enables learning through experiencing which lasts long. Scientists nowadays are doing the same thing using technologies and have named it virtual reality, where the viewers immerse in the artificial atmosphere and anticipate the happenings with real involvement. The same can be experienced by reading a novel, for example, where we curse the villain and praise the deeds of a hero or heroine or both. We also sympathize with the people who suffer unnecessarily. The same may be correlated to Coleridge’s theory of willing suspension of disbelief and to Aristotle’s theory of Catharsis. They depend on how far a reader allows himself to be consciously captivated by his believing of what he reads. It needs to be emphasized learning literature is not only the prerogative of those who study it. People from all walks of life can be benefitted by it. In drama, for example, the action is revealed through a series of dialogue. A language learner finds it easy to internalize the language pattern as drama provides a ‘life-like’ experience to him. Who does not know the famous dialogues of Shakespeare; “what is in a name” or “to be or not to be”? for example. In the 20th century scene trends such as New Criticism or Objective criticism which are language oriented as it focuses on the internal dynamics of a given literary piece (‘words on a page’). The field of stylistics also is in trend (stylistics is the branch of language study which is principally concerned with the integration of language and literature). A learner can get immense help from such new way of looking into literature. Even though many experts reiterate that one should read a lot of novels to build one’s vocabulary, the teachers should be able to distinguish right English from the slang, dialects etc. The main drawback found in courses like English literature is that the attention of the learners is totally focused on the geographical information, theme and character analysis, besides the background of the writer. As a result, the existing system of teaching and learning literature never allows the learner to concentrate on the nuances of a language. While teaching literature, grammatical aspects of a text should be explained by the teachers apart from concentrating on the story. Currently in most schools and colleges, the learning activities of students are

always textual. Language acquisition is made theoretical and not application-oriented. Objectives should always be kept in mind. As a teacher one needs to realize that the main objective is to teach language through literature and not literature per se. By reading a small literary piece one could come across various uses of words, phrases, phrasal verbs, idioms and the like. A learner will also get to know how language varies as per the context. Again an important and vital distinction needs to be made here and the difference is between the teaching of language and the teaching of literature per se. Literature, no doubt is an independent discipline but it proves immensely helpful when it is used as a tool to teach various language skills. The goal in this case is not teaching literature. The goal is to teach a language. The focus here should be to use literature to teach language. So, more care can be

invested in vocabulary, word combinations and sentence formations. As a teacher the study material should be prepared keeping in mind the interest of the learners. Literature is one of those ‘learner-friendly’ means through which language learning can be made pleasurable as well as practical. Literature is like a mirror through which the temporal dynamics of a language is better known. It helps to keep pace with recent development in the field of language, an aspect a language learner should never overlook. However, it needs to be emphasized here, that we need to be ‘context-sensitive’ while using this method of language learning and language teaching. CONCLUSION Traditionally, the role of Literature was not taken into consideration in English Language Teaching programs due to the importance given only to functional language. Today, Literature in second language classes has a very important linguistic input for students and it is a valuable source for learners’ motivation. Usually, students who study only English Language emphasizing on reading and writing skills, sometimes fail to see the point of studying English literature, especially if they have no plans to study English or Translation at University. But English Literature can introduce students to a range of aspects, not only of the English Language but also of the English culture. Joseph Cruz says, since English has become an international important language, more and more people are studying it. “The

study of literature allows people to develop new ideas and ethical standpoints, and can help individuals to present themselves as educated of society. Studying literature can be enriching, eye-opening experience….” To conclude we may say as the Modern poet Ezra Pound said, “great literature is simply language charged with meaning to the utmost degree.” Literature helps in language learning as it provides a language for talking about a language (a meta language).

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2. Paul Simpson’s view 3. Learning language through literature 4. Conclusion 5. Bibliography

Bibliography

Birch, D. Language, Literature and Critical Practice. London: Routledge, 1989. Brumfit. C and Carter. R. A (ed) Literature and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986 Short, M, and Candlin. Ed. Teaching Study Skills for for English Literature. Harlow: Longman, 1986. Simpson, Paul. Language Through Literature: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1997. .