DJILLALI LIABES UNIVERSITY OF SIDI BEL ABBES FACULTY OF LETTERS, LANGUAGES, AND ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH
Enhancing Students’ Literary Response and Appreciation for Fiction
Using the Reader Response Approach:
The Case of Third Year LMD Students at Algiers University 2
Dissertation submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Magister in Didactics.
Submitted by: Supervised by:
Mr. NEDJARI BENHADJ ALI Youssouf Dr. GUERROUDJ Noureddine Board of Examiners:
Chairperson: Dr. Benaissi, Bouhas, F. MCA Djillali Liabes University, SBA Supervisor: Dr. Guerroudj, N. MCA Djillali Liabes University, SBA Examiner: Dr. Kies, N. MCA Djillali Liabes University, SBA Examiner : Dr. Boulenouar, M. Y. MCA Djillali Liabes University, SBA
I
I hereby declare that this thesis does not contain material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university, nor does it contain material previously published or written by any other person, except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis.
II To my dear parents
To my beloved brothers and sisters To all my colleagues and friends To all my teachers
III
I owe much to my family for their understanding, patience and help.
A profound debt of gratitude is owed to my supervisor
Dr. Guerroudj Noureddine
for his guidance and support and for introducing me to The Reader Response
Theory.
I am also indebted to all my Magister teachers, including my supervisor, for
their interesting lectures, documents and advice during the academic year
2012-2013.
I would like to thank
Professors David S.Miall and Don Kuiken for providing me
with useful comments via e-mail.
I would like to thank my brother Ibrahim for the precious help he provided, and
all those who made this work possible.
I wish to acknowledge the contributions of the faculty members at the
Department of English at the University of Algiers 2 and the Department of
English at Ali Lounissi University.
Gratitude is also due to students participants for their acceptance and enthusiasm
to take part in the study.
IV
Reading fiction successfully requires the participation of the reader in making the meaning of the literary text. The process of meaning creation demands the interplay between the text and the reader. The broad aim of the Reader Response Approach to teaching literature is to arrive at a more advanced literary competence that enables students get the best of literary texts at the academic and personal levels. The amount of research on the effects of the Reader Response Approach on literature teaching and reading seems to be very limited in Algeria. The desire to carry out this research stems out from reflections on the way literature is being taught in the Algerian literature classroom, which is the traditional teacher-centered approach manifested in the provision of text and context conventional analysis and accepted, agreed upon, interpretations of literary texts. This study attempts to investigate the effectiveness of using the Reader Response Approach to teaching literature, which is based on the Reader Response Theory, to enhance third year LMD students’ literary response to and appreciation for fiction. The novel is the genre that was selected to address the issue. The study employs a students’ questionnaire and students’ documents’ analysis as research tools, in addition to the selected literary text which is The Great Gatsby. The findings suggest that the RRA does enhance students’ literary response to and literary appreciation for the novel, yet they need to avoid misinterpretation. The study concludes that teaching practices derived from both the RRA and the conventional approach enable students to reach a better reading of the novel. The dissertation consists of four chapters. Chapter one presents a review of the literature relevant to the study. It considers the theoretical framework, i.e., the Reader Response Theory and the Reader Response Approach as adopted in L1 and L2 classrooms. The second chapter presents the research methodology used. The third chapter is dedicated to the analysis and interpretation of data obtained via the research instruments. The fourth chapter closes the study by providing the resultant implications and recommendations.
Key words: the Reader Response Approach, literary response, literary appreciation, fiction, third year LMD students.
V STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP……….………... I DEDICATION……….…...II AKNOWLEDGMENTS………....……...III ABSTRACT…...……… ………... IV TABLE OF CONTENTS…...……… …...……
v
LIST OF GRAPHS, FIGURES AND TABLES………..….
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS…..………... …..
xii
GENERAL INTRODUCTION………...1
1. Statement of the problem………..…..3
2. Purpose of the study………..…..6
3. Rationale………...6
4. Research questions………..…6
5. Objectives of the study………..…..7
6. Research design and tools………...…….7
7. Structure of the dissertation………..…..7
CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW Part One: Reader Response Theories. 1.1. Introduction………...9
1.2. The Reader-Response Theory………...9
1.2.1. Preliminary considerations………....9
1.2.1.1. Formalism and New Criticism………...9
1.2.1.2. The ideological framework………...11
1.2.1.2.1. The RRT structuralist and post-structuralist backgrounds.………...11
1.2.1.2.2. Phenomenology………...13
1.2.2. Reader-Response theories………...16
1.2.2.1. Experiential Reader Response theories………....17
1.2.2.1.1. The Transactional Theory………...………..17
1.2.2.1.2. Reception Theory: A phenomenological approach………..……..……...24
1.2.2.1.3. Reception Theory: A historical dimension………...…28
VI
1.2.2.2.3. Affective Stylistics and the Social Reader Response Theory……...………....40
1.2.3. Validity of interpretation………...46
1.2.4. The concepts of literary response and literary appreciation……….………...49
Part Two: The Reader Response Approach and the Literature Classroom Introduction………...53
1.3. The Reader Response Approach and L1 Literature Classes………...53
1.3.1. RRA-based Teaching Practices in the L1 Literature Classroom………....55
1.3.1.1.Reading as a Focal Practice……….….55
1.3.1.2. The Transactional Theory: Implications for Teaching………...55
1.4. The Reader Response Approach and L2 Literature Classes………...…..57
1.4.1. Building up Literary Reading Responses in Foreign Language Classrooms………….58
1.4.2. Teaching English Short Stories to EFL Students: the Iranian Context………...58
1.4.3. Reading Logs: An Application of the Reader Response Theory………....59
1.4.4. Teaching Short Stories Using the Reader Response Approach: The Oman Context….61 1.5. Conclusion………...………...…62
CHAPTER TWO: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2.1. Introduction………....63
2.2. Choice of the research design………...….63
2.3. The Population………...…64 2.4. The sample………...…..64 2.5. Data-gathering tools………...…64 2.5.1. Students’ questionnaire………...…64 2.5.2. Document analysis………...67 2.6. Procedure………...…69
2.6.1. Procedure in the control group……….…...70
2.6.2. Procedure in the experimental group………..……70
2.7. Method of data analysis………...…..72
2.7.1. The pre-reading questionnaire………....73
2.7.2. The subjects’ responses………...73
2.7.3. Literary appreciation………...74
2.8. Piloting……….…..75
VII
2.9.2. Main reasons………...…77
2.10. Conclusion………...83
CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 3.1. Introduction………...….84
3.2. Students’ pre-reading questionnaire responses analysis and interpretation……….…...84
3.2.1. Students’ pre-reading questionnaire responses analysis………..…...84
3.2.1.1. Data analysis of the control group responses to the pre-reading questionnaire…...…84
3.2.1.2. Data analysis of the experimental group responses to the pre-reading questionnaire……….………91
3.2.2. Students’ pre-reading questionnaire interpretation………..………...97
3.2.2.1. Data interpretation of the control group responses to the pre-reading questionnaire………...…97
3.2.2.2. Data interpretation of the experimental group responses to the pre-reading questionnaire………...…100
3.3. The participants’ literary appreciation……….103
3.4. Analysis and interpretation of students’ reading logs………...…105
3.4.1. Analysis and interpretation of the first episode reading logs………...105
3.4.2. Analysis and interpretation of the second episode reading logs……….….107
3.4.3. Analysis and interpretation of the third episode reading logs……….….108
3.5. Analysis and interpretation of students’ responses from a Rosenblattan perspective….110 3.6. Evaluating students’ literary appreciation………....111
3.7. The posttest data interpretation………....114
3.7.1. The students’ literary response………...….114
3.7.1.1. The control group posttest data interpretation………...…114
3.7.1.2. The experimental group posttest data interpretation……….….115
3.7.1.3. Comparative analysis of the results from the control and experimental groups...….116
3.7.2. The students’ literary appreciation………....117
3.7.2.1. The control group posttest data interpretation………...117
3.7.2.2. The experimental group posttest data interpretation………..118
3.7.2.3. Comparative analysis of the results………...118
VIII
4.2. Summary of the study……….….123
4.3. Pedagogical implications……….…124
4.3.1. Implications for the teaching of literature in Algerian literature classrooms………....124
4.3.1.1. The need for building up a more advanced literary response………125
4.3.1.2. The need for avoiding misinterpretations……….……...127
4.3.2. The relevance of the Reader Response Approach for Communicative Language Teaching………...128
4.3.3. The significance of the efferent-aesthetic continuum for teachers…………...…131
4.4. Recommendations………....133
4.4.1. Recommendations for students………...133
4.4.2. Suggested classroom practices for teachers……….…134
4.5. Limitations………..….138
4.6. Suggestions for further research………...139
4.7. Concluding personal thoughts………...140
4.8. Conclusion………...140
GENERAL CONCLUSION………...……….…...141
BIBLIOGRAPHY………..….144
APPENDICES Appendix 1: The Developmental Model of Reader-Response Approach………….……..…149
Appendix 2: Reader Response Indicators and the Illustration of Questions designed by Beach and Marshall (1991) and revised and developed by Rudy (2007) (Used to appreciate the short story)………...…150
Appendix 3: Reading Logs (Carlisle, 2000). (Guiding questions from Rudy’s list were added)………...151
Appendix 4: A 30 items questionnaire based on LRQ (David S. Miall and Don Kuiken, 1995)………...153
Appendix 5: Samples from students’ reading logs………..….……155
IX
Figure 1.1: The traditional view of literary meaning………..12
Figure 1.2: The view of literary meaning after ‘Death of the Author’………...12
Figure 1.3: The duck–rabbit puzzle: The subjective nature of perception……...…………...14
Figure 1.4:The Efferent-Aesthetic Continuum………....23
Bar-graph3.1. Percentages of the control group responses to the pre-reading questionnaire………...100
Bar-graph 3.2. Percentages of the experimental group responses to the pre-reading questionnaire………...…101
Bar-graph 3.3. A comparison between the percentages of the control group negative responses and those of the experimental group……….….102
Bar-graph 3.4. The change in the subjects’ level of literary response over the three reading episodes. ……….109
Bar-graph3.5. The change in the experimental group participants’ literary response according to the aesthetic-efferent categorization………...………111
Bar-graph 3.6. The change in the experimental group participants’ literary appreciation over the three episodes. ………..113
Bar-graph 3.7. A comparison between the control group posttest results and the experimental group posttest results (level of literary response)………...116
Bar-graph3.8. A comparison of the control and experimental groups’ posttest results according to the efferent-aesthetic continuum………117
Bar-graph 3.9. A comparison of the control and experimental groups’ posttest results in terms of literary appreciation ………..………..……….…119
Table2.1: Structure of the students’ pre-reading questionnaire………..65
Table 2.2. Structure of a reader response chart used by participants…….………..……68
Table 2.3. Summary of Carlisle’s guidelines to write reading logs……….……69
Table 2.4. The distribution of the 9 chapters into 3 episodes………...………71
Table 2.5. The categorization of Thomson’s levels of response according to Cox and Many’s measure………...74
Table2.6. Literary appreciation elements and their indicators used prior to the experiment……….………....74 Table 2.7. Students’ pre-reading questionnaire piloting……….……..76 - 77
X
Table 3.2. Frequencies of the experimental group participants’ responses to the pre-reading questionnaire items………(91 – 93) Table 3.3. Percentages of literary appreciation indicators………...103 Table 3.4. Percentage of students’ levels of response to the first three chapters………….106 Table 3.5. Percentages of response types added by the researcher (first episode)………...106 Table 3.6. Percentage of students’ levels of response to chapters 4, 5 and 6………...107 Table 3.7. Percentages of response types added by the researcher (second episode)……..107 Table 3.8. Percentage of students’ levels of response to chapters 7, 8 and 9………...108 Table 3.9. Percentages of response types added by the researcher (third episode)………..108 Table3.10. Percentages of students’ efferent and aesthetic responses (The first episode)……...110 Table3.11. Percentages of students’ efferent and aesthetic responses (The second episode)………...110 Table3.12. Percentages of students’ efferent and aesthetic responses (The third episode)………...111 Table 3.13.Literary appreciation elements and their indicators used during the experiment………..112 Table3.14. Percentages of the literary appreciation elements for the first reading episode………112 Table3.15. Percentages of the literary appreciation elements for the second reading episode………112 Table3.16. percentages of the literary appreciation elements for the third reading episode………113 Table 3.17. The control group posttest results (percentages of response levels)…………...114 Table3.18. The control group posttest results (percentages of some types of response)……….114 Table3.19. The experimental group posttest results (percentages of response levels)………..115 Table3.20. The experimental group posttest results (percentages of some types of response)………... 115 Table 3.21.Percentages of efferent and aesthetic responses of the control group…………..116
XI
Table 3.23. Percentages of the literary appreciation elements based on the control group’s posttest………....118 Table3.24. Percentages of the literary appreciation elements based on the experimental group’s posttest………...118
XII
CBA : Competency-based Approach. CLT : Communicative Language Teaching.
DEFT : Defense – Expectations – Fantasy – Transformation. EFL : English as a Foreign Language.
ELT : English Language Teaching. ESL : English as a Second Language. L1 : First Language.
L2 : Second Language or Target Language. LMD : Licence- Master- Doctorat.
LRQ : Literary Response Questionnaire. RR : Reader Response.
RRA : Reader Response Approach. RRT : Reader Response Theory. %: Percentage.
1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
Of all the major developments in human thought since the Renaissance period, the one brought by the twentieth century was the most striking. The tendency towards free thought and critical thinking revolutionized the intellectual sphere, thus triggering massive political, social and economic upheavals.
The objective certainties of nineteenth century science were being seriously questioned. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity alone cast doubt on the belief that knowledge was an accumulation of facts. A rallying cry against absolute truth, it permanently changed our perception of time, place, matter and the universe. Philosopher T.S Kuhn argued that a ‘fact’ does not exist without a frame of reference that the scientific observer uses to understand a phenomenon.
Likewise, Gestalt psychology contends that the human mind does not perceive things as separate bits and pieces but arrangements of elements making meaningful wholes. Individual items look different in different contexts and the way they are felt, seen or interpreted differ according to the perceiver’s perspective. Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida and other thinkers rejected the role of metaphysics that seeks the ultimate truth. Instead, they denounced authority of knowledge and called for its relativity. The object of understanding now had no one single meaning, but became subject to multiple layers of interpretation.
In the political sphere, the last century witnessed the fall of dictatorships and all forms of despotism and totalitarianism, leaving the floor for democracy, political pluralism, and freedom of speech. Literature, which has been always a manifestation of social, political and intellectual trends, was heavily influenced by the above achievements.
This modern emphasis on perspectivism, relativism and the critical mind constitutes a highly valuable part of literary theory and literary criticism. For a long time, pre-modernist and modernist critical discourse focused particularly on the text or the context as meaning holders and marginalized the reader as an active participant in the reading process. Modern
approaches were introduced in the 1950s and 1960s by Formalists and New critics
(anticipated by Russian Formalism around 1915-1930) who brought the literary text to the fore and emphasized the tradition of close reading. This structuralist approach was challenged by post-structuralist and post-modernist approaches in the second half of the twentieth
2
century. New Historicism, Feminism, Psychoanalysis, Deconstruction, Postcolonialism and Reader Response Theory are nowadays major interpretive methods in literary criticism. By way of evaluation, one must admit that post-structuralist literary theory responds to the demands of twenty-first century pedagogy. This latter has the primary aim of preparing individuals to be flexible, multi-skilled, dynamic, problem-solvers and creative users of available resources to interpret the world around them from different perspectives. Bridging the gap between received, background knowledge and individual creativity is the new trend. The reader, to whom this dissertation is devoted, received attention as the large wave of literary modernism swept Europe and America.
In his 1968 essay “Death of the Author”, French literary critic and theorist Roland Barthes argues against the traditional literary criticism that refers to the intentions and biography of an author to decide what his/her work means. He contends that interpretation must be based on a separation between the work and its creator.
Barthes opposes the method of reading that relies on aspects of the author’s identity – their political views, historical context, religion, ethnicity, psychology and other biographical or personal facts as frame of reference to explain the text. For him, “to give a text an Author” and thus give it one “correct” interpretation “is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing”1. There is no one understanding that can be assigned to a text. It “is a tissue of quotations” drawing upon “innumerable centers of culture” and not only the writer’s life experiences2
. Meaning then is constructed by the reader and “a text’s unity lies not in its origins, but in its destination”3
.
In declaring “the death of the author” Barthes implicitly announces the birth of the reader, and liberates him/her from the constraints of authorial intent. The writer becomes a mere “scriptor” who produces the text without explaining it. The scriptor “is born simultaneously with the text” and the work “is eternally written here and now” by each reader with each re-reading4. Meaning is the product of the psychological effect of language.
1
Cain, E.C. et al. (2001). The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. NY, USA. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.p.1469 2 ibid.p.1468 3 ibid.p.1469 4
Cain, E.C. et al. (2001). The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. NY, USA. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.p.1468
3
Holding similar views, leading reader-oriented theorists such as Louise Rosenblatt, Wolfgang Iser, Hans Robert Jauss, Norman Holand, David Bleich and Stanley Fish brought the role of the reader in interpreting literature to the fore. Their critical studies were an outcry against New Criticism’s postulation that meaning resides in the literary text and belongs to it. They argue that this meaning is not passively consumed by the reader but actively created and constructed using his/her cultural and social background, personality traits, psychological states and other factors that operate in the making of it. The reading process becomes an event, an experience, a performative act that has a lasting effect on the reader. The scholars mentioned above put forth a number of theories collectively referred to as Reader Response Theory, as they share the common ground of emphasizing the paramount importance of readerly interpretation of literature.
In recent decades, there has been a growing interest in the significance of RRT (Reader Response Theory) for the teaching field. A great deal of research has been done, for the benefit of both native and non-native speakers of English, exploring the pedagogical implications of this theory for the teaching of literature with quite interesting findings.
The Reader Response Approach is based on the Reader Response Theory. It imposed itself as a student-centered method of teaching and reading literature and is now having a growing influence on literature classes both in L1 and EFL/ESL contexts. At a broader level, educationalists came to realize, and are still investigating, its implications for the teaching of language skills and enhancing communicative skills. Numerous researchers were interested in the works of Rosenblatt and Iser, and have explored the impact of their theories on the language classroom.
To the end of making the best of literary texts, pedagogues have suggested various classroom procedures derived from the RRA. This latter is being implemented by teachers around the world in L1 and L2 classrooms. In Algeria, it seems that few if any studies are conducted in this regard.
1. Statement of the problem:
The specificity of literature as an intellectually demanding discipline makes its teaching quite different from teaching other areas such as language skills. It is the area where students need to decipher hidden messages and dig up ideas and moral issues. Literary texts have a powerful function in raising ethical concerns in the classroom if well explored. Literature teachers should pinpoint how far literary language deviates from ordinary language and accordingly adopt a teaching method that enhances their students’ literary competence (a term
4
coined by literary scholar Jonathan Culler). Gillian Lazar5 states the following tentative definitions of literature which show few of the characteristics marking its uniqueness:
Literature is the use of language to evoke a personal response in the reader or listener.
Literature is a world of fantasy, horror, feelings, visions . . . put into words.
Literature means . . . to meet a lot of people, to know other different points of view, ideas, thoughts, minds . . . to know ourselves bette.
Literature could be said to be a sort of disciplined technique for arousing certain emotions. (Iris Murdoch, The Listener, 1978.)
Great literature is simply language charged with meaning to the utmost possible degree. (Ezra Pound, How to Read, Part II.)
The Formalists’ technical focus led them to treat literature as a special use of language which achieves its distinctness by deviating from and distorting ‘practical’ language. Practical language is used for acts of communication, while literary language has no practical function at all and simply makes us see differently. 6
Literature is the question minus the answer. (Barthes, New York Times, 1978.)
As such then, Literature provides a wonderful source material for eliciting strong emotional responses from students. Using literature in the classroom is an effective way of involving learners as whole persons, and offering them golden opportunities to express their personal opinions, reactions and feelings (Lazar 1993:15). The literary text is an open space that is supposed to engender discussion, controversy and continuous questioning. Students ought to explore the thematic matter of a literary work and connect it to their own lives, and their struggle for a better society. To ensure this, a responsive reading and a deep appreciation of literature should be fostered.
How can the Algerian literature classroom be described with regard to the above issues? From a learner’s perspective, it is undeniable that most teachers use a teacher-centered approach to teach literature. In a CBA context, it remains a traditional approach resting upon the provision of biographical and contextual information, characters analyses, theme study and stylistic features such as the use of symbols. After reading the selected work, student-teacher debates revolve around character development and the main themes. Students’
5
Lazar, G. (1993). Literature and Language Teaching: A guide for teachers and trainers.UK, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.pp.(7-8)
6
5
interventions are important, but the teacher is noticeably the center, the most trusted, the knowledge provider, directing the students to reach a supposedly ‘‘correct’’ interpretation. The learners’ behavior is an extension to this teacher-centeredness. Throughout my teaching of American literature at university, I have noticed the following:
It seems that students find it difficult to make sense of a literary work they read (implicit meaning).They have weak interpretive abilities and need to build up the skills of forming hypotheses and drawing inferences necessary for the task of “teasing out” the unstated implications and assumptions of a literary text. This is due to the level of their response to the text’s signs.
They find it difficult to recognize the values, attitudes, and themes explored in a literary work. Some of them are unable to go beyond the literal meaning. This low level of response inhibits them from realizing the significance of characters’ behaviors and plot events and appreciating the work as a whole.
They don’t always make critical judgments about the characters or events in a plot. They need to develop a more responsive reading.
They are sometimes reluctant to share their personal responses with the teacher or the class. They lack the confidence to come up with their own interpretations and instead content themselves with ready-made criticism. This unwillingness to freely express their views and defend them might be the result of a previous experience of rote learning that does not foster in any way the skills of learner autonomy.
They have in mind the idea that there is one accepted understanding of the text and that the teacher must know what it is. This attitude stems from the Algerian students’ cultural aspect of having a general tendency towards a monolithic meaning of a work.
They fail to develop a sensitivity to and longing for reading literature. There is a lack of motivation. The enjoyment of the literature class is sometimes absent. Thus, they don’t show appreciation for certain works.
Performance in literature exams: many students’ literary essays are reproductions parroting previously received explanations. This is partly due to their preoccupation with passing the exam rather than “taking the risk” of failing by being more creative.
Students do not show an awareness of the purpose of literature and fail to relate it to themselves or the external world. The learning objective is directed towards exams; consequently, the didactic effect of literature is limited.
6
Bearing all this in mind, it could be concluded that Algerian students’ literary response and appreciation for fiction need enhancement. The present study addresses this issue.
2. Purpose of the study:
The present study is intended to investigate the effectiveness of using the Reader Response Approach to teaching literature to enhance the Algerian students’ responses to and appreciation of literary texts, more specifically, the novel. Literary response and literary appreciation are two closely related concepts, as the former leads to the latter. The more readers engage and get involved in the world a novel or poem, the more they develop better understanding of it and recognize its value. It must be noted here, that this research is not a critique of the conventional method, but rather an investigation of new and promising effects the RRA may well bring to the Algerian literature classroom. It provides insights about a new way of teaching literature to meet the broad aim of this discipline, i.e., personal development.
3. Rationale:
The rationale behind the use of the Reader Response Approach to teaching literature is the belief that students’ needs matter in the learning process (learner-centeredness). Students become enthusiastic when personally involved in a teaching situation. As for literature, they need opportunities to express their emotional reactions to the literary works they read. This ‘aesthetic reading’ (as we shall see) activates students’ experiences and background knowledge, which are used to enhance understanding and increase pleasure. The literature classroom becomes a lively atmosphere of insightful discussions and enjoyable, productive teacher-learner interactions. Moreover, the abundant research literature on the Reader Response Approach and the continually growing interest in its implementation in EFL classrooms, are incentives for undertaking the study.
4. Research questions:
Three research questions are at the core of this study:
How applicable is the Reader Response Approach to the Algerian literature classroom?
Does the Reader Response Approach enhance the Algerian students’ literary response to the novel?
Does the Reader Response Approach help Algerian students enhance their literary appreciation for the novel?
7
On the grounds of the above-cited questions, the following hypotheses were put forward: The Reader Response Approach is applicable to the Algerian literature
classroom; students will embrace it and will be motivated.
Adoption of the Reader Response Approach will enhance the Algerian students’ individual and collective responses to the novel.
The use of the Reader Response Approach will foster a better and deeper appreciation for the novel.
5. Objectives of the study:
The present work seeks to reach three main objectives:
Examining the applicability (relevance and appropriateness) of the Reader Response Approach for the Algerian literature classroom (teachers, students, teaching-learning process).
Investigating the role of the Reader Response Approach in enhancing Algerian students’ literary response and literary appreciation with regard to the novel, and changing their general attitude as to its significance for the real world. Suggesting ideas for further research such as the efficiency of such an approach
in enhancing language and communication skills.
6. Research design and tools:
For the sake of answering the research questions, the study uses the quasi-experimental design, as it best suits the nature of the topic and ensures validity and reliability. The effectiveness of RRA can be better judged through a juxtaposition of its results and those of the traditional method. The procedure was to select two groups of third year LMD students, the control group and the experimental group, and teach them F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great
Gatsby using the two approaches. Based on a comparison of the results got from the two
groups after intervention, conclusions will be drawn as to the practicality of RRA and its effectiveness in fostering responsive reading and appreciation for fiction. Questionnaires, reading logs and writing assignments served as data collection instruments.
7. Structure of the dissertation:
This dissertation comprises a general introduction, four chapters as well as a general conclusion.
Chapter one aims at reviewing the literature on the topic, i.e. theories underlying the use of the Reader Response Approach. It presents the RR theories and their key tenets, research
8
made on the implementation of these theories in teaching literature in Western countries and elsewhere, as well as some researchers’ discussions of two key concepts: ‘literary response’ and ‘literary appreciation’.
Chapter two presents the research methodology used. It provides a thorough account of the research design, the subjects involved in the study, data gathering tools, and the procedure followed.
Chapter three is dedicated to the analysis and presentation of the data obtained. Chapter four tackles the research’s resultant pedagogical implications and recommendations meant for both teachers and students. These are expected to open up new prospects for the teaching and learning of literature in Algeria.
Chapter One
Literature Review
9
1.1. Introduction:
It is conventional in any research to present a review of the relevant, not necessarily exhaustive, literature. This chapter is a detailed presentation of the reader response theories and their underlying assumptions , a number of proposed Reader Response applications and classroom procedures for native and non-native speakers of English, as well as an examination of the concepts of ‘literary response’ and ‘literary appreciation’ with reference to definitions put forward by some researchers.
1.2. The Reader-Response Theory:
In essence, Reader-Response Theory is a reaction against Formalism and New Criticism. Therefore, we find it plausible and sensible to first look briefly at the basic principles of the latter, so that by way of contrast, the former is well comprehended.
1.2.1. Preliminary considerations:
The Reader Response Theory was the outcome and the by-product of much contemplation about the principles of literary criticism that prevailed prior to and during the formation of the Reader Response mindset.
1.2.1.1. Formalism and New Criticism:
Formalist criticism rose to prominence in the early twentieth century, defining itself in opposition to subjectivist theories of literature such as Romanticism, which was viewed as both solipsistic and relativistic. It also distinguished itself from older traditions such as biographical literary criticism of the nineteenth century, which were concerned with extrinsic or extra-textual features in their analysis of literature. The Formalist schools, namely Russian Formalism and Anglo-American New Criticism, are not interested in the feelings of authors, the responses of readers, or the representations of “reality”; instead, their preoccupation is the artistic structure and form of literary texts.
Russian formalist critics such as Roman Jakobson and Boris Eichenbaum distinguish between the literary and the nonliterary. They perceive literature as a verbal art, and seek an objective discourse of literary criticism by using a structural analysis. The focus is on the distinguishing features of literature or, in Roman Jakobson’s words, “The subject of literary scholarship is not literature in its totality, but literariness, i.e., that which makes a given work a work of literature.”1
Formalist analysis is a morphological method that neglects historical,
1
Erlich, V. (1981). Russian Formalism: History—Doctrine. London and New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.p.172
10
sociological, biographical or psychological dimensions of a literary work regarding it as an independent entity2. Unlike the other modes of discourse, literature draws the reader’s attention to its own medium, i.e., the formal devices (versification, style, narrative structure)
that make up its complex texture 3 . A central concept in Russian Formalism is
defamiliarization, that is, the deviation of literary language from the norms of everyday language with which the reader is familiar. As for the reader himself,it is obvious that he has no place in the formalist mind.
Similarly, New Criticism, which dominated the practice of literary criticism during the 1930’s and 1940’s, objects author-centered biographical or psychological approaches and has the literary text as the center of its attention4. New Critics such as William K. Wimsatt (1907-75), Allen Tate (1899-1979), and J.C.Ransom (1888-1974) focus on the form of the text and separate their analysis from the study of social and historical contexts, politics, readers’ reception, and all extrinsic considerations which they regard irrelevant. “They thought of literary texts as ‘autonomous’, as self-sufficient and self-contained unities, as aesthetic objects made of words”5. Taking into account the reader’s emotional reaction in the context of a novel or a poem as an analytical tool leads to misinterpretation.
In this respect, the concept of the ‘affective fallacy’ is central to the New Critical methodology: a reader should not confuse the interpretation of the literary work with the “feelings” experienced while reading. An objective stance will be maintained and a subjective potentially erroneous understanding will be avoided as long as the critic or reader pays careful attention to “the words on the page”. New Critics advocate this intrinsic inquiry that they term “close reading”, i.e., the thorough and rigorous analysis of the text’s elementary features such as paradox, irony, word-play, puns and rhetorical figures which together shape the larger structures6.
It appears that the position of European Formalism and Anglo-American New Criticism with regard to readers’ role in meaning making is that of denial. They both assume that readers are, and ought to be, controlled by the structures and language of the written words. The proponents of these text-oriented approaches posit that meaning is the property of the text
2 Klarer,M. (2004). An Introduction to Literary Studies.2nd ed. London and New York:Routledge.
3
Cain, E.C. et al. (2001). The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. NY, USA. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
4
Klarer,M. (2004). An Introduction to Literary Studies.2nd ed. London and New York:Routledge.
5
Bennette, A. &Royle, N. (2004).An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory, 3rded. Great Britain:
Pearson Education Limited.p.11
6
11
and can be accessed exclusively by informed literary critics. The pedagogical implications of such a trend put the learner at the receiving end, consuming one objective accepted interpretation of the text, provided by critics and taught by the teacher.
The flaws of text-based literary analysis prompted a paradigm shift, during the second half of the twentieth century, towards reader-oriented approaches and new text-centered schools. Of these post-structuralist currents, the Reader-Response Theory was particularly a zealous affirmation of the reader as active participant in the making of literature.
1.2.1.2. The ideological framework:
Despite the fact that Reader-Response Theory reached its zenith in the 1970s and continues to have various formulations today, its premises can be traced back to the ancient Greek and Roman cultures that regarded literature as a rhetorical device to teach moralities and emotionally affect an audience. Aristotle recognized how important the reaction to a tragedy is in that it induces a cathartic effect by purifying and purging a reader’s or viewer’s emotions. More recently, this theory found its roots in the pioneering works of New Critic I.
A. Richards in the 1920s and Louise M. Rosenblatt during the 1930s7. In Elizabeth Freund’s
words, “The conspiracy of silence surrounding the supposed impersonality of critical reading is now gradually being unmasked.”8According to Richards (1929), readers form ‘an attitude’ about a
narrative, ‘some special direction, bias, or accentuation of interest towards it, some personal flavor or coloring of feeling; and we use language to express these feelings, this nuance of interest. Equally, when we pick it up, rightly or wrongly,’ Richards adds, ‘it seems inextricably part of what we receive’9
.
1.2.1.2.1. The RRT structuralist and post-structuralist backgrounds:
Structuralist Jonathan Culler and post-structuralist Roland Barthes postulate theories that, in many ways, intersect with the reader-oriented paradigm. As aforementioned (See the general introduction), Barthes’ seminal article Death of the Author (1968) re-evaluates the reader-text-author relationship and dismisses authorial intent as central to literary interpretation. In it, he posits that the writer “enters into his own death” when “writing begins”10. Meaning does not reside in the literary work but is built by the reader. This claim is
7
Davis, Todd.F. & Kenneth, W. (2002). Transitions: Formalist Criticism and Reader-Response Theory.New York: Palgrave.
8
Freund, E. (1987).The Return of the Reader: Reader-Response Criticism. London: Methuen.p.11
9
Richards, I. A.(1929) . Practical Criticism: A Study of Literary Judgment. London: K. Paul, Trench, and Trubner.p.175
10
12
in sharp contrast to the traditional approach of the Formalists that views meaning as a secret message to be uncovered and the text as codes to be deciphered. (See figure 1 below).
Figure 1.1: The traditional view of literary meaning11.
The text is then perceived as having one definite objective meaning just as the code has a single encrypted meaning. However, Barthes implies in his article that meaning is the resultant construct of the interaction between text and reader and is not the property of the former, nor should the author decide it. There is, consequently, an array of different interpretations produced by different readers12.
Figure 1.2: The view of literary meaning after ‘Death of the Author’13.
Further analysis of the reading process is provided by Barthes in his S/Z suggesting that “the goal of literary work (of literature as work) is to make the reader no longer a consumer, but a producer of the text. Our literature is characterized by the pitiless divorce which the literary
11
Eaglestone, R. (2002). Doing English: A Guide for Literature Students. London and New York: Routledge.p.81
12 ibid. 13
13
institution maintains between the producer of the text and its user, between its owner and its customer, between its author and its reader”14
. In addition, Barthes draws a distinction in S/Z between what he terms ‘readerly’ (lisible) and ‘writerly’ (scriptible) texts. The first is read and consumed without great efforts to make sense of it; the second is more difficult to interpret and requires rigorous attention from the reader to re-write it15. Thus, reading a writerly text is an act of production as it involves decoding “the cultural, ideological, and historical codes” lying behind it16. Barthes implicitly points to the modernist text as writerly, being “a galaxy of signifiers, not a structure of signifieds,” having “no beginning” . . . “we gain access to it by several entrances, none of which can be authoritatively declared to be the main one ; the codes it mobilizes extend as far as the eye can reach”17
.
In dealing with the literary conventions that make up what he calls ‘literary competence’, Jonathan Culler describes the nature of readers and their various ways of experiencing literature. He also recommends the shift from text to reader in literary discourse and attests to the multiplicity of readers’ interpretations.Davis and Kenneth18
state that:
In his second mode of critical reading, Culler contends that understanding literature as an institution provides readers with the means for comprehending what one ‘does’ during the reading process. Readers respond differently to the literary signs and discourses of reading; hence, readers can produce a wide range of variant interpretations of a given literary work depending on their experiences both as readers of literature and as members of the larger human community.
1.2.1.2.2. Phenomenology:
A basic philosophical background of the Reader-Response Theory notably the German version of Iser and Jauss is phenomenology. It is a modern philosophical movement that emphasizes the perceiver’s role in determining the meaning of the perceived object. “It shifts our emphasis of study away from the ‘external’ world of objects toward examining the ways
14
Davis, Todd.F. & Kenneth, W. (2002). Transitions : Formalist Criticism and Reader-Response Theory.New York : Palgrave.pp.(58-59)
15
Selden, R. &Widdowson, P.&Brooker,P.(2005). A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, 5th
ed.GreatBritain : Pearson Education Limited.
16
Davis, Todd.F. & Kenneth, W. (2002). Transitions : Formalist Criticism and Reader-Response Theory.New York : Palgrave.p.59
17
Barthes, R. (1977). Image-Music-Text. Trans. Stephen Heath. New York: Hill and Wang.pp.(5-6)
18
Davis, Todd.F. & Kenneth, W. (2002). Transitions : Formalist Criticism and Reader-Response Theory.New York : Palgrave.p.61
14
in which these objects appear to the human subject, and the subjective contribution to this process of appearing”19
.
Edmund Husserl argues that what is real is not the physical entities we see in the world, but the way they appear to our consciousness. This attitude is a revival of the idea that the human mind is the origin of all meaning20. Husserl claims that objects would be nothing at all for the subject or the observer if they did not ‘appear’ to him, if he had of them no
‘phenomenon.’21
. He goes further to argue that the object is nothing in itself without the mind
making sense of it. Elaborating on this, M.A.R. Habib22points out Husserl’s observation about
the complexity of the term “phenomenon” as it is used in his thought. Habib reports Husserl’s
idea that the perception of an object (i.e., when an object “appears” to us) is not a simple operation as this object might be given to us in distinct ways. Habib adds, “We might look at it from above, below, near, far, past, and present. Therefore, we in fact have several single intuitions of the “same” object. These single intuitions are combined and integrated into “the unity of one continuous consciousness of one and the same object.”23
The perceiver is active and not passive in the act of perception. In the case of the famous duck–rabbit puzzle, there are two ways of recognizing the shape : a duck looking left, or a rabbit looking right.
Figure 1.3: The duck–rabbit puzzle: The subjective nature of perception.
Hence, the activity of arranging objects and phenomena in the world, which is done by human consciousness, make things exist. Husserl also suggest in his 1917 lecture “Pure
19
Habib, M.A.R. (2005). A History of Literary Criticism from Plato to the Present. USA , UK & Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.p.709
20
Selden, R. &Widdowson, P.&Brooker,P.(2005). A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, 5th
ed.Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited.
21
Habib, M.A.R. (2005). A History of Literary Criticism from Plato to the Present. USA , UK & Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
22 ibid.p.710 23
15
Phenomenology, its Method and its Field of Investigation,” that a work of art (like any other phenomenon) cannot somehow exist without being received by an aesthetic sensibility which realizes it as a work of art24.
Husserl’s doctrine concentrates on the workings of human consciousness but relatively neglects the external world’s impact on it. Its contribution to literary theory is not pure subjective criticism that looks at the critic’s mental or psychological state but a criticism that attempts to delve deep into the writer’s work and reach an understanding of how it is received by the critic’s consciousness25
.
Closer to the reader-oriented theories are the views of Martin Heidegger, Husserl’s student. In his Being and Time, Heidegger re-examines the notion of ‘human being’ or ‘Dasein’. One characteristic of human existence is ‘throwness’ into a world of ‘facticity’, that is, we find ourselves inevitably facing the world, in a time a place and relationships we did not choose26. Another feature is ‘existentiality’ or ‘transcendence’: we are in constant attempt to cope with the world around us by applying to it our self-image, leading ourselves to self-discovery27. A third feature is ‘fallenness’, i.e., in trying to impose ourselves, we ‘fall’ from true ‘Being’ as we become immersed in the concerns of daily life28.
In other words, human consciousness, according to Heidegger, “both projects the things of the world and at the same time is subjected to the world by the very nature of existence in the world”29
. Our sensibility (subject) and external matters (object) cannot be dissociated, and perception always occurs in a situation. This idea prefigures the reader-text relationship as established by Iser, Jauss, and Fish.
In Truth and Method (1975), Hans-Georg Gadamer, another exponent of phynomenology, relates Heiddegger’s situational analysis to literary theory. He argues that a literary work, after being produced, is not complete, and its meaning depends on the historical context of the reader30. His work was a precursor to Jauss’s Reception Theory.
24
Habib, M.A.R. (2005). A History of Literary Criticism from Plato to the Present. USA , UK & Australia: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
25
Selden, R. &Widdowson, P.&Brooker,P.(2005). A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory, 5th
ed.GreatBritain : Pearson Education Limited.
26 Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper
and Row.pp.82–83 27 ibid.pp.(235-236) 28 ibid.p.220 29 ibid.
30 Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper
16
1.2.2. Reader-Response theories:
In the 1960’s and 1970’s there was a shift in focus from the text to the reader. Reader Response Theory, which hails the reader and opposes the New Critical assumption that meaning is embedded in the textual artifact, was a watershed in the history of literary criticism. This umbrella term is used to refer to a number of theories which, though they differ in their explanations, all argue that the role of the reader in creating meaning is essential in the reading process. They hold the simple view that readers respond to literature emotionally (and on other levels) and that such responses are important for the understanding of the work. Stanley Fish boldly decides in Is there a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive
Communities that “The place where sense is made or not made is the reader’s mind rather than the printed page or the space between the covers of a book”31.The Reader Response theories look at the reading process from different perspectives, and spotlight the reader to varying degrees. In her Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post Structuralism, Jane Tompkins notes that “Reader-Response criticism is not a conceptually unified critical position, but a term that has come to be associated with the work of critics who use the words reader, the reading process, and response to mark out an area for investigation.”32
The extent of the reader’s involvement in meaning building is also different to the different forms of Reader-Response theories. Daniel Chandler33 identifies two positions:
Constructivist: Meaning in interplay between text and reader or ‘negotiated’.
Subjectivist: Meaning entirely in its interpretation by readers or ‘re-created’.
There are many categorizations of Reader-Response theories. The one used below is suggested by Mary Anderson in a 2012 article entitled: Reader-Response theories and Life Narratives. The theories “can be grouped under three umbrellas: experiential (Louise Rosenblatt, Wolfgang Iser, Hans Robert Jauss); psychological (Norman Holland, David Bleich); and cultural/social (Stanley Fish).”34
31
Fish, S. (1980). Is there a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge. Harvard University Press.p.397
32
Tompkins, J. P., Ed. (1988). Reader-response criticism: From formalism to post-structuralism. Baltimore & London: John Hopkins University Press. xi
33
Chandler, D. (1995). “Texts and the construction of meaning.” In UWA.
34 Anderson,M.(2012).readerresponsetheoriesandlifenarratives.athabasca,alberta.athabascauniversity.Retrieved
17
1.2.2.1. Experiential Reader Response theories:
Experiential Reader Response theories view the reading process as a unique experience between the reader and the literary text involving multiple mental and psychological processes. We can tentatively group two theories under this category: Louise Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory and the Reception Theory of Hans Robert Jauss and Wolfgang Iser. 1.2.2.1.1. The Transactional Theory:
The RRT was first advanced in 1938 by American literary critic Louise M. Rosenblatt in her seminal work Literature as Exploration. Her ideas are known as the Transactional Theory. They emerged from her observations of readers in her university literature classes. In this book, she declares that “the text is merely an object of paper and ink until some reader
responds to the marks on the page as verbal symbols”35. Meaning as such, does not reside in,
and is not the property of the text, but comes into being after a reader’s enterprise: the act of reading. Thus, reading for her is a creative activity. In this regard, she observes:
The process of understanding a work implies a recreation of it, an attempt to grasp completely all sensations and concepts through which the author seeks to convey the qualities of his sense of life. Each of us must make a new synthesis of these elements with his own nature, but it is essential that he assimilate those elements of experience which the author has actually presented.36
In other words, reading for Rosenblatt is the product of a reciprocal relationship between reader and text. In this respect, Rosenblatt uses the term ‘transaction’ to refer to this relationship. She claims that“…'Transaction'...permits emphasis on the to-and-fro, spiraling,
nonlinear, continuously reciprocal influence of reader and text in the making of meaning.”37
She adds, “The meaning — the poem — ‘happens’ during the transaction between the reader and the signs on the page.”38
Transaction, a key term in the Transactional Theory, involves a series of processes through which the reader establishes a synergistic relation with the text. Personal views, life experiences, feelings, emotions, gender influences, socio-cultural background are elements that, together with what the text offers, create meaning, making reading an active, creative, dynamic process. Explicating the nature of the reader’s reaction to the text, Rosenblatt writes:
35
Rosenblatt, L.M.(1978).The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.p.23
36
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1995). Literature as Exploration. 5th edition. New York: Modern LanguaAssociation.p.133
37
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1995). Literature as Exploration. 5th edition. New York: Modern Language Association.p.xvi
38
18
The special meaning and more particularly, the submerged associations that these words and images [in a literary work] have for the individual reader will largely determine what the work communicates to him. The reader brings to the work personality traits, memories of past events, present needs and preoccupations, a particular mood of the moment, and a particular physical condition. These and many other elements in a never-to-be-duplicated combination determine his response to the peculiar contribution of the text.39
Therefore, the reader-text relationship is manifested in a mutual influence. “In the past,” Rosenblatt notes, “reading has too often been thought of as an interaction, the printed page impressing its meaning on the reader’s mind or the reader extracting the meaning embedded in the text.”40
Reading as transaction, however, is an event based on the contribution of both the signs on the page and the reader’s mental and psychological responses to them, derived from his ‘linguistic-experiential reservoir.’
The linguistic-experiential reservoir is the reader’s “inner capital of funded assumptions, attitudes, and expectations about language and about the world”41. In other words, the linguistic, social, cultural and religious backgrounds, personal beliefs and expectations, along with the individual qualities such as psyche, gender and age, are the factors that interplay to influence the reading process and meaning construction. Equally important is the reading context or the current state during the reading transaction, i.e., place, time, mood, present needs or concerns, and physical condition42. “Each reader brings to the transaction not only a specific past life and literary history, not only a repertory of internalized ‘codes’, but also a very active present, with all its preoccupations, anxieties, questions, and aspirations.”43.
Meaning of a literary work is not self-formulated, but rather the output of a transaction between an individual and marks on a page, taking place at a particular time, under particular
circumstances, within a particular social and cultural environment44. Reading then becomes an
event during which two parties continuously act and are acted upon in a spiraling, to and fro, non-linear process. This event “ is a kind of experience valuable in and for itself, and yet
39
Rosenblatt, L. (1995). Literature as Exploration. 5th edition. New York: Modern Language Association..pp. (30-31)
40
ibid.
41
Rosenblatt, L. 1998. Readers, Texts, Authors. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 34/4.p.891
42
Rosenblatt, L.(1978).The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois UP.
43
ibid.p.144
44
Rosenblatt, L.(1988) Writing and Reading: the Transactional Theory. Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.
19
– or perhaps, therefore – it can also have a liberating and fortifying effect in the ongoing life of the reader.”45.
The presence and effect of the previously mentioned elements during the reading process give meaning (or interpretation) its peculiarity. It is individual and personal. Rosenblatt contends that a literary work is interpreted differently by different readers. It is subject to a vast array of understandings as many as the individuals who read it. In this regard, Rosenblatt argues that “There is no such thing as a generic reader or a generic literary work; there are in reality only the potential millions of individual readers of the potential millions of individual literary works”46
.
The second characteristic of literary meaning is change. The same reader would interpret a literary work differently with each re-reading. The peculiar and ‘never-to-be-duplicated
combination’ of transaction components Rosenblatt talks about, ‘determine’ literary response
of each reading event. This response changes because the reading context and the reader’s personal attributes (age, psyche, worldview…etc) change. Individual interpretation is an ongoing process of adjustment, revision and self-discovery.
From the transaction between a reader and the text in Rosenblatt’s theory is the notion that the reader’s stance, or the purpose of reading, shapes the nature of the reading process and response to the text. Rosenblatt uses 'selective attention,' a term coined by William James (1890) to describe the idea that there is a selection process, a conscious or unconscious decision to focus, to attend to certain objects, facts, or processes at any moment during reading. There is a “dynamic centering on areas or aspects of the contents of consciousness”47
. Rosenblatt acknowledges that ‘selective attention’ provides an explanation to her framing of the distinctive process of the literary experience which involves “…first, adoption of a focus of attention, or a stance, and, second, selection of responses relevant to the text”48
Selective attention brings into play information from the linguistic-experiential reservoir, emotions, expectations, values, and beliefs brought to the text; and the text’s cues, suggestions
45
Rosenblatt, L.(1995). Literature as Exploration. 5th edition. New York: Modern Language Association.p.277
46
Rosenblatt, L.M.(1938). Literature as Exploration. first edition. New York: Modern Language Association.p.32
47
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1988) Writing and Reading: the Transactional Theory. Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.p.4
37
ibid.
48 Rosenblatt, L.M(1978).The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work.
20
and indications that language produces49. These ingredients are blended into what constitutes
meaning.
Rosenblatt argues that our selective attention is focused on the information or the facts in the text when our purpose is to recall them after reading. Our attention, however, may turn at a given moment to ‘what is being lived through during the reading event’ and the focus is on the feelings and emotions experienced while reading. Rosenblatt uses the terms ‘efferent’ reading to refer to the first case and ‘aesthetic’ to refer to the second.
The efferent stance in reading is primarily associated with the purpose of gaining what the text offers or understanding what it is saying. Derived from the Latin ‘efferre’, for ‘carry away’, ‘efferent’ is used to refer to a nonliterary kind of reading50
. The emphasis is on “abstracting-out and analytic structuring of the ideas, information, directions, conclusions to be retained, used, or acted upon after the reading event”51. The efferent reader seeks ‘factual’ material and adopts a stance similar to the behavior of someone reading a user manual to know how an apparatus functions, a citizen reading a newspaper, or a student reading a textbook. Hence, when we read efferently or nonaesthetically, we intend to acquire knowledge in terms of content, not in terms of its emotional effect upon us.
The aesthetic stance, on the other hand, is adopted by the reader who seeks not information provided by the text, but rather the emotional and aesthetic experience it creates. He attends not only to the content (the story), but also to the feelings evoked, the associationsand
memories aroused, the images that pass through the mind during the act of reading.52Attention
is centered on the reading experience and all sensations pertaining to it. In Rosenblattan terms, “In this kind of reading, the reader adopts an attitude of readiness to focus attention on what is being lived through during the reading event.”53She attributes her use of the term
aestheticto its Greek source that suggests perception through senses, feelings and intuitions.
She also considers both the public referents of the verbal signs of the text and “the private part
49
De Jiménez, S. S. (2009). Understanding the Stages of Literary Appreciation. Retrieved August 9th , 2013, from http://fr.slideshare.net/marcomed/testing-literary-appreciation.
50
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1991). Literary theory. In J.Flood, J.M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J.R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching the English language arts (pp. 57–62). New York: Macmillan.
51
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1988) Writing and Reading: the Transactional Theory. Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.p.5
52
Probst, R.E. (1987). Transactional Theory in the Teaching of Literature. ERIC : Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. Urbana IL.
53
Rosenblatt, L.M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. Theoretical Models and Processess of Reading, 5th edition, Robert B. Ruddell, & Norman J. Unrau, editors, International Reading Association, article 48, (pp.1363–1398).
