RUNNING HEAD: A Critique on “Is Literature Language? Or is Language Literature” 1

Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Critique on “Is Literature Language? Or

is Language Literature?”

By Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Wednesday, May 6, 2015 Twitter: @jonacuso

Post 165

“Pupil’s responses to literature … is parallel with the value of the pupil’s work within

other subject areas” (Burke & Brumfit, 1986). The one problem with literature is how it

has been taught all along, without a very clear methodology (Long, 1986) that really

directs both instructors and learners in contexts where English is not a native language

“by treating it as a completely separate subject area from English language” (Burke &

Brumfit, 1986).

Students do face trouble understanding literature. Burke & Brumfit (1986) agree

on the fact that difficulties may arise “from ignorance of the language being used, of the

ideas being used, or of the form being used.” To put Burke & Brumfit’s (1986) argument

simple, learners may lack the necessary linguistic, conceptual, and formal tradition to

cope with literary texts. And the search for an aesthetic response, rather than an efferent

reaction (McKay, 1986), is not going to happen.

A Critique on “Is Literature Language? Or is Language Literature” 2

Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

What seems to be the problem with Burke & Brumfit’s argument? To start with,

the authors do not account for the similarity or difference of problems young and adult

EFL/ESL learners may face in working with literature; they concentrated on analyzing

what children can experience in class. What is intrinsic and important to the teaching of

literature is what Burke & Brumfit (1986) point out when they state that literature is

“enriched not merely at the level of language, but also at the level of form, structure of

story, paragraphing, concept, and so on. And there is no reason why this cannot be done

with young and adult EFL/ESL learners. This a great way to activate the reader’s schemata

to enrich reading.

To make the teaching of literature in the EFL/ESL class effective, certain conditions

must be met. For Burke & Brumfit (1986), it is necessary to “treat the literary tradition …

as a literary and not solely a national or linguistic tradition,” to understand that responses

proceed “from an awareness of relationships between book,” to comprehend the need to

“grade the skills necessary” to cope with literary pieces, and to recognize that “literature

can be enriched by skillful use of background material.” If these principles are aligned

with the necessary linguistic, conceptual, and formal tradition to cope with literary texts,

a literature for language learning can be aesthetically introduced and used.

“Is Literature Language? Or is Language Literature?” From my point of view, the

inquiry is not solved! Literature is not language, but uses it as a vehicle to convey ideas;

language is not literature though words are used to convey one’s schemata. Literature

“cannot be read in a vacuum” (Burke & Brumfit, 1986), so language is needed to cope

with one’s former experiences.

A Critique on “Is Literature Language? Or is Language Literature” 3

Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano

Burke, S. & Brumfit, C. (1986). Is Literature Language? or Is Language Literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

Long, M. (1986). A Feeling for Language: The multiple values of teaching literature. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP

McKay, S. (1986). Literature in the ESL Classroom. Literature and Language Teaching. Edited by Brumfit & Carter. Oxford: OUP