Language Through Literature:Some considerations [Archives:2003/669/Education]

Murari Prasad
Faculty of Education
Sa'adah
Sana'a University
In a series of perceptive articles titled “Teaching Language through Literature: Problems and Principles” Prof. D. Thakur has cogently, and indeed opportunely, underlined the interface between language and literature in the context of teaching English in the Third World. The writer has passionately defended the importance of English literary studies, and interestingly enough the plea has come from a teacher who has not only been a devoted ELT practitioner in India and Yemen but has also bridged the lang.-lit. divide in his calling.
Prof. Thakur considers lang.-lit. divide an unhelpful dichotomy and makes sensible suggestions for a fruitful harmony between the two sub-disciplines (italics mine). Clearly, he stands away from the ELT orthodoxy which is patently counterproductive – at least it has proven so in our context. To sum up the author's submissions, the teaching of English for instrumental purposes has led to progressive emaciation of literature in classroom activities; the ELT curriculum insists on a bland blend of pragmatic skills without any frills; the teaching of literature has come to a sorry and utterly unproductive pass , and so efficient and elegant use of the English language is not attainable without the life-giving leaven of literature. How can literature be made an ally to language teaching? The author stresses on a gradual and appropriate integration of literature, English literature in our context because of its pre-eminent position in the imaginative and ideational domains, within the framework of language learning. One can hardly dispute the issues Dr. Thakur has raised, the arguments he has marshaled and the conclusions he has reached. However, some points by way of this reader's input may be added and amplified.Dr. Thakur rightly cautions us when he means to say that instead of burying their heads in the sands of their ruins, the teachers of English should tackle the widespread malaise head-on. I wish to emphasize on the ' how' of doing it – not that I can answer the question but, in my view, it is certainly worth asking. The loss of faith in the methodology of English literary studies is not peculiar to any particular part of the Third World, where it was pedagogically propelled in the decolonised situation, it is being felt, of course in varying degrees, in L1 countries too. The following two observations by the pioneers of reform in ELT are quite revealing.
In 1963 Sir Randolph Quirk noted the state of affairs in Indian universities:
Students who are scarcely able to read a restricted vocabulary text in modern standard English are expected to study a Shakespeare play, some of Jane Austen at her subtlest, some of Pickwick Papers at their most colloquial (not to mention dialectal and archaic) and a sporadic selection of poems from the seventeenth century to the nineteenth century.

In 1985 Henry Widdowson explained the situation with reference to literature teaching in his own country, the United Kingdom: “Over recent years in this country, there has been a proliferation of little booklets of potted critical judgments which students can use as effective prophylactic against any personal contact with actual texts.”
Now, the ELT reform in the Third World, to cut a long story short, with BANA (British, North American and Australasian) concepts, methodologies and materials, developed in the TESEP (Tertiary, Secondary and Primary) levels do not seem to have sat comfortably within the local learning ecology. In an article of this kind it is not desirable to plough through the plethora of experimentation in ELT from structural -notional- communicative movement to technology-driven packages and burgeoning business-oriented courses and materials (St. John 1996; Warschauer, 1995; Winleate et al 2000). The need of the hour is to evolve appropriate methodology and get away from the globally enabled hegemonic ELT agencies. A number of writers have criticized the use of the term 'native speakers', and drawn attention to the weakness of the argument that Native speakers make the best teachers (Rampton 1990, Medgyes 1992, Davies 1995).
So, where do we go from here? I shall refer to a couple of points which should interest teachers of English in EF(S)L contexts: (i) literary works in translation; (ii) New literatures in English; (iii) simple, not 'simplified', and easily accessible and enjoyable literary writings by L1 writers; (iv) broader view of literature to include good writings related to science, sport, business etc. instead of narrow-tunnelled ESP materials and packages, and (v) development of appropriate ELT methodologies instead of depending entirely on the profit-making ELT empire.
As Alan Maley notes (2003), ELT in Asia hasn't yet capitalized on the hugely rich resource of the home-grown writers in English. What will be more relevant to the Yemeni learners of English – translated works of Naguib Mahfauz and Abdel Rahman Munef (whose Trenches and The City of Salt have been considered in the genre of 'Petrofiction' – the Novel and the Oil encounter by an Indian writer, Amitav Ghosh) into English, or the works by D. H. Lawrence and William Golding? Few can deny that the latter are far from the lives and sociocultural make-up of the EFL learners. What we need to create is a “strong feeling of cultural identity between reader and text and a new sense of ownership of the language.” Needless to say, it entails radical reshaping of the teaching materials in English in our universities.
——
[archive-e:669-v:13-y:2003-d:2003-09-18-p:education]