1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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
