The Art of Engish Literary vs Non-Literary Comprehension - Essay Example

?THE ART OF ENGLISH LITERARY VS NON-LITERARY COMPREHENSION and/or ID # Teacher The purpose of this paper is to discuss the premise that the mental processes stimulated in the reader by literary texts are distinctly different from those required in the interpretation of non-literary texts. While at first this premise may seem quite sound and logical, this writer believes that the human brain and the language process itself sees little difference in the actual words and grammar expressed between literary and non-literary works. However, the interpretation and the overall absorption of such are obviously quite different. First we must examine the mental processes that are being inferred in this premise. While the brain and the ‘little black box’ of language acquisition certainly supply the rudiments by which we as human beings interpret language as communication, it is also our experience that helps us interpret not only non-literary data correctly, but also give us the insight to interpret literary and creative communication in a multitude of ways as well. Noam Chomsky (1968), and others, have posited that we all possess a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) often referred to as the ‘little black box’ which starts up in infancy and runs till about five or six years old. There is a universal grammar that is possess that allows us to pick up language quickly through imitation and observation. As time passes this device appears to shut down and learning language become a much more complex process, intellectual rather than subconscious. However, after this time we process language itself at higher and more complex levels, allowing literature to be created and understood, well beyond the simple rules of grammar. Context is certainly the key when trying to perceive the way the mind perceives and differentiates between literary and non-literary texts. Here it is not as simple as poetry versus prose, since both can be used as creative mechanisms or information transfer mechanisms. But how does the mind analyse this information for context as well as content. There are two prevailing theories on language that attempt some clarification of this area of study, Schema theory and Relevance theory. Schema theory proposes that information that is read is taken into consideration and analysed in four basic areas scripts, plans, goals and themes (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 373). However these packets are often not so clear-cut and can also vary dependent upon one’s own persona experience, ‘… this involves not only knowledge of language but also organised knowledge of the world.’ (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 371) This knowledge can also vary from culture to culture as well as on an individual basis. Take for instance scripts which are defined as ‘…knowledge of a stereotypical situation or activity.’ (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 362) These evolve over time and are based solely on individual experience within a cultural or social context. ‘Separating schemata into scripts, plans, goals and themes can sometimes be tricky because boundaries are not always so clear-cut. This is why Cook (1994) uses the expression “interpretative schemata” rather than just “schemata”’. (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 373) Relevance theory, on the other hand, is part of the branch of linguistics known as ‘pragmatics’ (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 377) that is also closely related to philosophy. Simply stated, this theory relies on the assumption that any packet of language has an ‘in-built guarantee’ (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 366) that it is relevant the reader will seek that relevance. Here, oddly enough, is where relevance of content and context play a major difference in the reader’s perception and further interpretation of the text. A reader will assume a maximum amount of relevance given the context of the text. In the instance given in the text, the reader will only give so much time to a commercial advert deeming its relevance to be clear by the specification of the product and the cost, no need to go further. However, in a more literary piece of text, one which has more subtle nuances of intent, the reader may delve further and read father than in the commercial advert. Why is this? In the example presented according to Bex, it is for a payoff of various rewards: … readers assume that the additional processing involved in finding relevance in the text world they create will lead to the following: cognitive effects of enjoyment, stimulation, mental enrichment in being able to use an imaginary world to reflect on, judge or escape from the actual world, etc. (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 367) Bex also differentiates literary from non-literary forms of expression by stating that literary forms have no practical consequences. However, this writer finds it a rather specious differentiation and highly suspect, since practical consequences for some may include a deeper and richer understanding of human nature, or one’s own self, etc. and not just escapism into a make believe amusement park of the mind. This brings up another issue, is the difference that the readers perceives one of true or false information, that is, is a literary text inherently false information (forgiven by it creative nature) while a non-literary text contains only true information. Furthermore, is the interpretation that our initial premise seeks the difference between reality and imagination, or to put it in more concretely for this language study, between fiction and non-fiction? And what about ‘genre-mixing’ (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 80) where elements of literary technique are used to enhance and illuminate a works of fact, such as in the case of In Cold Blood, by Truman Capote and A Civil Action, by Jonathan Harr, both works of non-fiction in that they are based on facts, but both use literary technique to elucidate not only the facts, but the people involved – yet they are still true and reality based. So we again arrive back at the reader’s perspective and how he or she interprets the work they are reading. Of course there is certainly a world of difference between reading a segment from the National Rail Schedule traveling from Torquay to Brighton (reproduced in Appendix I), and say The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, is there not? Going back to Bex, the practical consequences of reading the rail schedule is obvious, getting you from the ocean and back home. But are there not some practical consequences and similarities when reading Prufrock? ‘Let us go then you and I / as the evening sun spreads out against the sky/like a patient etherised upon a table.’ The mind unfolds these lines to reveal the time of day and transportation. For this writer, here is the real difference regarding how the mind perceives and interprets literary and non-literary works. While these two examples are at the extreme ends of the spectrum they go to prove this point quite well. The mind has very little conversion to do when reading the rail schedule; in fact, non-literary works go out of their way to make the relevance immediate and of a rather low order of mental processing. As Bex further elucidates in the text, ‘On the principle of relevance, minimum effort is invested for maximum cognitive effects. Any additional processing effort in a reader’s search for optimal relevance needs to be balanced by a suitable set of effects.’ (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 366) Whereas literary works require a bit more than a casual glance to convey their meaning. There is more of a challenge involved and more of a prize then simply winding up in Brighton at the end of the journey. For this writer, discovery is the key function of any literary work and this requires an altogether different approach when reading and processing such a piece of writing. Not only relevance but sets of schemata get put to work in order to discover the meaning behind the words of the poem, which has deeper and deeper levels as one ponders it. Take for instance the example on page 371 (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006) of the text regarding John and his trip to the country. Reading through it we see that John has taken a ride so far out in the countryside that he has become lost. But as the commentary states, ‘That John is lost is not made explicit above. So if you understood readily what was happening here, it is because you have a set of schemata for what happens when people get lost while out driving.’ (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 371) In the example from the line of Prufrock above we see the same schemata at work, ‘as the evening sun spreads out against the sky’ creates a visual image in our minds that turns into a sunset and gives us the time of day, certainly a relevant schema that everyone is acquainted with. This is very different, and is processed quite differently than the phrase, ‘it was sunset.’ While it may invoke an image in some, it is really a statement of fact that calls up little imagery for most. The text states that, ‘…the human brain is genetically geared to seek relevance in any form of communication and through human evolution has become very efficient at doing so.’ (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 365) This writer would agree, however relevance may not be the specific word that connotes what actually is going on. Pattern may be more appropriate, but that discussion is for another paper. However, humans also have another trait that is part and parcel of the mental processing of a literary work, curiosity, which is all part of the discovery motivation. Of course this is also highly dependent on the type of reader involved in the search. Ordinary readers may view this type of material quite differently than expert readers. This requires more of a psychological approach to understanding how individuals interpret literary and non-literary works based on their reading interest. Psycho-formalism is on such attempt at looking at the empirical data available regarding the, ‘…psychology of reading literary texts with an emphasis on how textual forms lead to meanings in readers’ heads’ (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 423) This approach includes a wide range of interests such as: the relationship between personality types and reading and writing; ‘processing’ patterns, such as the effect of the speed of reading on how people read; comprehension strategies. A significant strand involves research into how ordinary readers respond to literary texts, and, in particular, how they recognise and respond to features typically viewed as ‘literary’, such as rhyme, alliteration, and different forms of linguistic deviation. (Goodman and O’Halloran 2006: 423) While our evolutionary rise has given our brains a survival mechanism to recognize patter and its relevance to our survival, the creation and perception of literature goes well beyond the theory of survival of the fittest. Also genetically predisposed to a curios nature, humans will attempt to discover deeper and more complex manifestations of information in the world and in their language. While reading non-literary text requires some curiosity, the payoff is usually immediate and practical in nature. Part of the survival code. However, in reading literary text there is more going on than information gathering and the processing of the information is much more complex and requires imagination, schemata recognition as well as relevance, but it also stems from the motivation to discover. This motivation may also have been part of our survival instinct as well, but in regard to communication it goes deeper and creates a sense of satisfaction and enjoyment when the discovery is complete. List of References Goodman, S. and O’Halloran, K. 2006. The Art of English: literary creativity. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan Chomsky, N. 1968. Language and Mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc. Appendix I Read More