Chapter 5 Literature as Subject and discipline

Different between subject and discipline is that disciplines are derived from the subject like you’ve studied literary criticism, linguistics or literature. So here he discusses that how literature is to be taught as subject because we do teach in literature as subject not only in Pakistan but in English countries.

But here is no proper framework as such for teaching English literature; what he says that teachers more or less teach literature to the student as the same way as they were taught.

This stylistic that we’ve been discussing and we’ve know how important this stylistic is, and within stylistic how important the role of language is in understanding literature. Language aspect, linguistics aspect and the linguistic analysis it guides to towards the understanding of literature.

When you ignore the importance of language you just focus on critical aspect of literature then you’re deriving the students of literature of very important thing in order to understand literature language has to be given due importance because as we see language is very important and there is no well defined rules for teaching English literature that according to stylistics this is how you teach the literature, take your example how you’re taught literature teacher reading out the poem and teacher explaining the main points what a writer wants to convey may be telling you about rhyme scheme at the most but guiding to you towards message this is what poet is saying.

But what happens when you’re taught literature you’re taking the message that teacher is delivering to you not the poem that is delivering, a poem communicates as we’ve seen literature as communication; that communication is delivered through the medium of teacher to the students. so students are doing what they are not understanding literature themselves, not trying to understand the message in the poem making use of language and all, but they are the told what the message is and that is what they follow; if they are supposed to explain that poem they will produce what the teacher has told them this is what you student have been doing. Teacher tells you summary the main idea and you reproduce it in exams.

Widdowson doesn’t believe in this approach he says that there should be a proper system through which and proper techniques would be used so that students are properly guided how to interpret literature; instead of giving them readymade interpretation which they cram and reproduce and

teacher give them one or two interpretation and students apply them in all of literature.

He says that literature since we know language is patterns in literature that gives the beauty to literature whether prose or poetry and when you translate it or paraphrase it so that beauty is gone, “a summary of scientific paper retains the character of scientific statement, but a summary of novel or poem cannot to be literature.” students then are not getting that beauty of literature and cannot appreciate that because they cannot reach it. And this happens when language is not given importance for

dealing with literature. It is patterning of language and the point is what that patterning is when you understand that you can understand literature. So language cannot be separated but unfortunately this has been happening in teaching of literature.

“it might  For example if there is extract from Shakespeare’s play what teachers normally do they take help of

literature as discipline by looking for more work of Shakespeare; so, looking for an of literature within the realm of literature. Their teacher might have taught them in the same manner, so teaching literature by taking help from literature that means ignoring the linguistics and language. That is to say teaching

literature as subject focusing on literature as a discipline. Aim of teacher is to teach literature for the exams but not for the sake of understanding of literature. Different disciplines are taught in order to make students understand the subject. For instance TEFL students are taught; how to teach and different

techniques for teaching English language but in literature teacher are not being given formal training for the teaching of literature.

They are teacher of literature but they do not know the principles of teaching literature; that his is how literature should be taught properly. So teacher teach at their own the way they want. There is no general framework for teaching literature; like TEFL has guidelines followed by all around the world for teaching

English. Aims and needed and procedure to achieve those aim. For this he quotes like from F.R Leavis who is trying to define literature as a subject.

“the essential discipline of an English school in the literary critical; it is a true discipline, only in an English school if anywhere will it be fostered, and it is irreplaceable. It trains, in a way no other discipline can, intelligence and sensibility together, cultivating sensitiveness and precision of response and a delicate integrity of intelligence…”

So according to Leavis the aim of literature should be that it does all of these things. And these are the things which no other discipline can do. This should be aim of literature as a subject according to Leavis’ but Widdowson objects.

This chapter favors stylistic approach towards the study of literature. Widdowson objects about definition of literature by F.R Leavis and he gives his own suggestions about the concept of literature

and how it should be taught.

F.R. Leavis’ definition of literature as a subject given which indicates what author sees as the essential benefit deriving form study of literature and in particular from a study of English literature:

“the essential discipline of an English school in the literary critical; it is a true discipline, only in an English school if anywhere will it be fostered, and it is irreplaceable. It trains, in a way no other discipline can, intelligence and sensibility together, cultivating sensitiveness and precision of response and a delicate integrity of intelligence…”

OBJECTIONS RAISED BY WIDDOWSON AGAINT THE DEFINITION OF F.R LEAVIS

i) The aims of the discipline of literary criticism as given in the definition are of extremely

general and idealistic kind;

Leavis ascribes to literary study may not be achieved. But pedagogic aims have to be more limited and realistic and within scope of reasonable attainment. His ideas are more like philosophy of literary study as a discipline but it has no indication how one might define pedagogy of literary study as a subject.

ii) There are a number of other discipline which might justifiably claim to train people acquire precision of response, awareness of the significance of tradition and so on.

There is no logic to believe Leavis’ claim. Scholars whose allegiance is to other disciplines, like History, Sociology, and the different branches of the Physical Sciences, could all make the sort of claim that Leavis makes.

iii) No mention is made of language whereas the benefits that Leavis associates with literary studies can be realized if the student develops an awareness of the way language is used in literary discourse for the conveying unique messages.

Use of language has vital role in literary writing it differ from other disciplines for instance a summary of scientific paper retains the quality of scientific statement, but a summary of novel or poem cannot to be literature. Leavis’ ascribed effects can be achieved through other disciplines but those effects come about through a heightened awareness of the way language can be used to explore and express realities. Student hardly experience text by themselves so unless they meet text they can’t understand the real sense of literature.

iv) Leavis’ remarks are made with British universities in mind or at least with universities in English-speaking countries in mind and the remarks were made over thirty years ago.

Literary studies have not generally been defined as a subject in such a way as to develop such sensitivity, either in secondary school or in universities.

v) Rejecting the argument that English literature teaching fosters desirable qualities of mind, one is left with two other possible reasons for teaching it overseas:

1. Cultural reason: To acquaint students with ways of looking at the world which

characterize the cultures of the English-speaking people (English, Irish, Scotish, Welsh) The treatment of literature as a cultural subject reduces literature to the level of conventional statement about ordinary reality. It does not direct at the specifically literary nature of literature. Literature, in such case, is only treated as a source of factual information, such as, we might read conventional forms of discourse like a historical document, philosophical treaties, a sociological questionnaire.

2. Linguistics reason: To teach English literature as something written in English language (figure of speech, metaphor, expression, the expression of language and vocabulary.

WIDDOWSON’S SUGGESTION

In view of these difficulties, it would be better to define literary studies as a linguistic subject and define the term “literature” as “an enquiry into the way language is used to express a reality other than that expressed by conventional means”. This of course, amounts to the study of literary works as kinds of discourse.

 If one defines the subject in this way, the reason for teaching overseas becomes immediately apparent. Pupils and students are engaged in learning the English language; this involves in part of learning of the language system the structures and vocabulary of English but it must involve also the learning of how this system is used in the actual business of communication.

This being so, the manner in which the resources of the language system are used in the fashioning of unique literary messages can be compared with other uses of the language so as to make clear by contrast how the system is used in conventional forms of communication. At the same time, of course, a

comparison with other kinds of discourse will reveal what it is what is unusual to literary uses of English.

So the study of literature is primarily a study of language uses and such it is not a separate activity from language learning but an aspect of same activity.

Widdowson says that in most cases the individual can only respond to literature as a result of guidance.

One cannot just express to literary writing but normally what critics and teachers. So often do is to tell students what message are to be focused in the literary words. This discourages them to find their own interpretation as the full input of work can only be recognized by the individual direct experience of it. Widdowson says literature should be read linguistically and literally. If we disregard we do not understand the real sense of literature.

Let is now consider some of the basic pedagogic principles that follow from the kind of stylistic approach to literary study that has been outlined in this book.

Firstly, the study of literature is primarily a study of language use and as such it is not a separate activity from language learning but an aspect of the same activity.

Secondly, it follows that the study of literature is an overtly comparative one, since not otherwise can it be practiced as an aspect of language learning in a more general sense. This principle can be put into conventional use of language to demonstrate the difference in the way the language system is realized

for communicative purposes. The assumption is that this comparative procedure will develop in the leaner two kinds of ability. The first is the ability of recognize the manner in which the signification of linguistic elements is modified by context and thereby to acquire a strategy for ascertaining their value in actual use.

Since it is common to find considerable divergence between significance and value in literary discourse, must obviously in the use of metaphor, literature can be used to demonstrate the kind of reason progress which must operate in the understanding of any discourse. The argument is that understanding

literature and understanding other kinds of discourse involve the same correlating procedure of matching code and context meanings but in understanding literary discourse the procedure is made more overt and self-conscious.