- Email: [email protected]
Paraphrase as paradox in literary education
Poetics 21(1993) North-Holland
443-459
Paraphrase
443
as paradox in literary education *
W. van Peer
The present paper reports on an exploratory investigation of classroom interactions in literary education, with special attention given to the activity of paraphrasing. It turns out that such activities occur regularly, especially in lessons concerning older literature and poetry. The activity is teacher-initiated. The pattern of paraphrasing in literature classes also differs from that in everyday life, in that it is geared (standardly) at what is considered by the teacher to be the ‘deeper’ meaning of the text. Problematic in teachers’ paraphrases is that they are usually directed at the text’s semantic organization, while often neglecting its pragmatic force, such as its illocution or its narrative ‘voice’. Furthermore, paraphrases are often felt to conflict with the intention and style of the original text. Where this distance between paraphrase and original becomes large, the activity of paraphrasing may become counter-productive as an instructional means.
1. Literary learning
Over the past decades, literary studies have become increasingly conscious of the important role social institutions play in the production and distribution of literature. We have similarly become aware of the impact these institutions (may> have on individuals’ and groups’ expectations vis-a-vis literature. Readers’ knowledge of literature, as well as their attitudes towards it, are largely a product of encounters not only with texts, but also with texts about literary texts, and above all with people passing on or monitoring ideas and values concerning these texts and their traditions. A significant portion of such ‘literary’ interaction takes place within the boundaries of particular social institutions, of which the family, the school, the mass media and the institutionalized religions are the most relevant ones. The emergence of the individual’s literary competence and motivation is shaped by the institutions s/he has gone through. From a sociological point of view, then, institutions play an important role in the formation of literary culture. Consequently, knowledge of the respective processes taking place within those institutions is Correspondence to: W. van Peer, Department of Literary Studies, Muntstraat 4, 3512 EV Utrecht, The Netherlands. * This paper benefited greatly from the comments of two anonymous reviewers, whom I hereby wish to thank. 0304-422X/93/$06.00
0 1993 - Elsevier
Science
Publishers
B.V. All rights reserved
W. can Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
444
of paramount importance for an adequate sociology of literature. Important this may be, but relatively little work has been done in this respect. Astonishingly little information is available about the concrete institutional practices through which an individual is socialized into literary understanding and taste. The present article goes some way in exploring the particular ways in which talking (and thinking) about literature takes place in the classroom. Because the formation of ideas concerning literature is for a considerable amount the work of the school, a concentration on the educational institution may help us to more accurately perceive the ways literature comes to manifest itself in the lives of individuals. Such perceptions may subsequently improve the validity of our theories concerning the functioning of literature in society.
2. Classroom
interaction
The starting point for the present investigation is the premise that classroom communication differs non-trivially from everyday interaction outside the educational institution, and that it organizes itself in a way largely uncontrolled by participants (teachers and pupils). Such an assertion may cause surprise. In what way is this organization ‘uncontrolled’? Is it not against our intuitions to doubt teachers’ ultimate control over their classes? And have the educational reforms that most western countries have gone through during the past decades not been founded on precisely this idea, that the teacher has a broad spectrum of alternative actions from which s/he may choose freely? Unfortunately, this idea must be rejected as rather naive. Classroom communication may leave teachers precious little room for manoeuvring, precisely because it is prestructured to a surprisingly high degree, thus narrowing the scope for individual decisions (of both teachers and pupils). These structures, moreover, seem to be generated spontaneously, often without participants’ being in any way conscious of these processes. This view can be easily illustrated with reference to questions. In everyday interactions, the situation in which questions are asked, may be characterized as follows. A speaker sollicits some information not at his/her disposal from a hearer. Generally two possible scenarios may be enacted: (1) the hearer knows the information requested or (2) s/he does not. If (1) then the hearer will normally communicate this to the speaker, who then thanks him/her. If (21, the hearer will apologize for not having the requested information available, after which the original speaker may solicit the information required from another hearer. In school (at least at the primary and secondary levels), however, questions are asked predominantly by teachers: contrary to everyday practice, the possibilities for questioning are not distributed symmetrically across participants. Secondly, and more importantly, the speaker, i.e. the teacher, does not
W ~‘anPeer / Paraphrase as paradox
445
usually request information which s/he does not already possess, and the hearer, i.e. the pupil, is normally aware of this. Again two possibilities pertain: either the pupil knows the answer, or does not. However, in neither case do apologies or acts of thanking occur. Furthermore, any answers given by the hearer are in this case evaluated explicitly by the speaker. Finally, this feedback of the teacher does not necessarily mean the end of questioning: usually s/he has a whole battery of questions ready at hand. What all this amounts to, is the observation that a question is not necessarily a question. Research into classroom interaction has amply demonstrated its highly specific characteristics; see, for instance, Baurmann et al. (1981), Mehan (1979). For a review of the literature, see Redder (19831, Regan (1983); Wieler (1989) has highlighted such aspects of communicative processes with reference to literature classes. The example of questioning, demonstrating differences between everyday and classroom interaction may be complemented with others. In this case we were dealing with a relatively simple verbal activity, in which only a few utterances were exchanged. Research has shown that education also employs much more complex constellations. Since Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) published their study, this has been demonstrated time and again; see Redder (1983) for a review. One could speak in this respect of patterns into which the verbal interaction organizes itself. A clear example of such a pattern is the setting of a problem (by the teacher) and the subsequent (attempts at) solving the problem (by the pupils); see Ehlich and Rehbein (1986b). Again the interaction is largely institution-specific. Research into the way these patterns of linguistic activity function within the educational institution has been developed especially by Ehlich and Rehbein (1977, 1986a), Ehlich (1983a). Which patterns operate in education is an empirical question, the answers to which cannot be produced in advance, but are the objects of research. With respect to literary education, few, if any, materials enabling a qualified answer to the preceding question are available; but see Cooper (19851, Fairley (19911, Van Peer (19891, Purves and Beach (19721, Short (19891, Wieler (1989). The present article concentrates on one particular pattern occurring regularly in literature classes, i.e. that of paraphrasing. Before turning to its analysis, however, something must be said about the research materials used. As a first step towards a study of action patterns in literary education, a modest, but well-documented set of materials was compiled. Fourteen literature classes, taught by ten different teachers in grade 4 of secondary schools were video-recorded. Geographically speaking, the schools were distributed rather evenly over various areas of the Netherlands. While observing the lessons, special attention was given to instructive strategies, teaching materials used, to classroom interaction and to timing. Further information col-
W. can Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
446
lected referred to teaching aids (including audiovisual), types of texts treated, and the teachers’ general pedagogical style and perspective. Of each of the lessons recorded the general organizational structure was documented, while for each lesson one or two excerpts that were considered promising were written out in more detailed protocols. These passages seem to be as representative for the lessons concerned as is possible on this scale. ’ Inspection of the data thus gathered revealed one particular pattern to occur rather regularly in the lessons, and which up to a certain degree seems to be a specific pattern for classes about literature, i.e. paraphrasing. In what follows, we shall concentrate on those lessons in which paraphrasing activities occur.
3. Paraphrase One of the activities pupils and teachers regularly engage in during the lessons recorded, is rephrasing textual passages in their own words. This is a linguistic activity occurring outside school as well, for instance in conversations of the following kind: A: So what did you say? B: I said I did not like it. What B does here, is paraphrasing her previous words. Her intended meaning may be read into it, not however her precise words. Hence the classic definition of paraphrase ‘. . . it is an operation which consists of producing a discursive unit which is semantically equivalent to another unit previously produced’ (Parrett 1989: 281). As Parret convincingly demonstrates, paraphrase occurs regularly in everyday discourse, where it serves the need of specifying each others’ ideas and intentions and of controlling the topic of the conversation and its development: ‘one of the main cooperative strategies between interlocutors is their willingness to paraphrase in order to clarify each other’s conceptions of the object of conversation’ (p. 288). In at least two respects the activity of paraphrasing in school is structured differently from instances in everyday interaction. Firstly, the paraphrasing occurs with respect to the words and intentions of persons not present in the interactive situation, often even of persons no longer alive (and whose communicative intentions are no longer directly accessible). Secondly, and more importantly, the paraphrases are not aimed at the practical elucidation ’ This makes the this stage was an did look, however, like to thank Fred
collection limited in scope and representativeness of the data. Our objective at explorative one, and the analyses of the data have mainly a heuristic value. I at all interactions in which aspects of paraphrase could be observed. I should Marschall, with whose help the data were collected.
W uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
447
of communicative problems, but rather at uncovering the ‘deeper’ layers of meaning, which are not apparent at first sight, and which may even not have been intended by its author; cf. Wimsatt and Beardsley (1954). Thus, in literature classes the activity of paraphrasing is geared at texts which do not readily yield their ‘deeper’ meaning. The examples which will be provided also show that paraphrases, like questions, may be employed in the classroom in order to check whether the pupil has actually understood the text under consideration. Paraphrase normally serves understanding. Comprehension of a text may be passed on or enhanced by means of a paraphrase. As a typical example of this, consider the following protocol from one of the lessons: ’ Transcript 1
1 T Look, how is it in ‘The Fool on the Hill’? 2 Isn’t it the case that this man on top of that mountain 3 sees that/sees the earth turning round, and sees it all 4 and, right/he’s got his own ideas about it, see 5 so you might perhaps say - yeah - somewhat colloquially. In this lesson, in which Lennon and McCartney’s song is compared to a Dutch adaptation by the poet Rutger Kopland, the teacher paraphrases the original lines But the Fool on the hill sees the sun going down and the eyes in his head see the world spinning round. Apparently the teacher assumes the text not to be sufficiently transparent to the pupils. Note, however, that the teacher displays an awareness of his own paraphrasing activities. That, at least, is what one gathers from line 5 in the transcription: the words ‘colloquially’, ‘perhaps’ and ‘might’ indicate the teacher’s conciousness that his paraphrase is - in comparison to the original text - somehow deficient. This relates to the distance between paraphrase and original, an aspect to which we shall return instantly. At this point it may be noted that the various paraphrasing activities are not distributed evenly over the lessons observed. In some, hardly any or even none could be observed. One of the lessons displays incidental occurrences, while in two lessons one encounters a relatively high proportion of paraphrases. Presumably it is no accident that in both these lessons older texts, in ’ Symbols used: T = teacher; P = pupil (when several pupils take part in the verbal interaction, numbers or initials are used to identify them); Ps = pupils; t.. .I = not understandable (e.g. because of noise, interference of other sounds, or poor recording quality); . = short pause; / = anacohtthon. For ease of reference, protocol lines are numbered. Texts are translations, as close as possible, of the original protocols in Dutch.
448
W. van Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
which the language itself already causes comprehension problems, are being read. Nor should one think it accidental that these lessons deal with poetry: most poetic texts are - amongst other things - characterized by a high semantic density, a strong concentration of ideas, and an unusual degree of contemplation. In lessons dealing with narrative texts, paraphrase occurs but incidentally, at most relating to a single word or expression. In this sense one must conclude that teachers employ the pattern of paraphrasing in a strategic manner: it is put to use when the text itself demands it. This implies that one could expect the teacher to generally initiate the pattern. This is indeed borne out by the data. In none of the observed lessons do pupils spontaneously take the lead in paraphrasing a text passage. In other words, the deployment of the pattern is based upon assessments made by the teacher.
4. Paraphrase
as speech act
At this point it may be useful to consider the activity of paraphrasing in more detail from the vantage point of speech act theory; cf. Austin (1962), Leech (19831, Levinson (19831, Rehbein (19771, Searle (1969). Formulated from the speaker’s perspective, at least the following acts are to be performed in order to carry out a speech act: the speaker utters a series of sounds (utterance) in a way which corresponds conventionally to specific meanings (proposition), and in doing so tries to pursue a particular social aim (illocution). Someone who, for instance, communicates to his room-mate It’s very close in here does so by uttering sounds which have a particular meaning in English. At the same time, the speaker attempts to realize a specific aim, for instance that his room-mate will open a window, or stop smoking. When applying this threefold division to the act of paraphrasing, we may see that it carries out an operation between two (series of) speech acts, in which the relations between the three dimensions is of special importance. Let us look at an example: Indeed I never shall be satisfied with Romeo, till I behold him - dead Is my poor heart . . . . . . (Romeo and Juliet, III, v, 93-95) If we wish to paraphrase the text, we are faced with a problem from the very start. Are we to take Juliet’s words as they are meant for her mother, or as we - readers or spectators - are inclined to understand them on the basis of what we know of the play in general? The difference is not a trivial one. In
W van Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
449
the former case, ‘dead’ applies to Romeo, in the latter to ‘my poor heart’. The former would be an expression of hate, the latter one of love. The double entendre here reveals a fundamental characteristic of literary texts, i.e. their dual action structure. At a first structural level, literary texts represent various characters who speak, feel, act. Thus in the passage just quoted Juliet interacts with her mother. At the same time, however, there is an (often almost invisible) hand behind these characters, setting up the scenes and pulling the strings. This ‘narrator’ 3 (who need not be identical to the author) presents characters’ actions or words in a specific way: neutrally, emphatically, ironically, and so on. In the Shakespeare quotation, this ‘narrator’ makes us, the audience, see through Juliet’s game, so that we may derive her second meaning both from the immediate situation she finds herself in and from what we have witnessed her do before. Now paraphrase may be geared at either of these two organizational levels of the text. One may paraphrase words or sentences uttered by characters, or one may paraphrase textual elements belonging to the world of the ‘narrator’. It is therefore surprising that in none of the observed lessons an awareness of this difference between organizational levels could be found. In fact, only paraphrases on the first level, i.e. that of the characters, could be observed. We shall later see how this may create serious problems in the use of paraphrasing. In trying to provide a rough paraphrase of Juliet’s words, one will inevitably have to retain her intentions intact in the paraphrase. In other words: a paraphrase will attempt to reproduce the illocution of the original as close as possible. This fidelity to the original does not apply, however, to the utterance form. On the contrary: a paraphrase is characterized by the fact that it is not the exact wording of the original that is repeated. (If one does not vary the utterance form, we call this a repetition, not a paraphrase.) Concerning the propositional content, the matter is not so clear. It is not forbidden to deviate from the original propositions. Yet too great a deviation may make it more difficult to retain the original illocution. The foregoing may be summarized as a set of conditions 4 operating on the paraphrasing
s Needless to say, I am using the term ‘narrator’ here in a loose sense, referring to any figure presenting the first level action. The term ‘presentation figure’ may be more adequate in this respect, but I have preferred not to unnecessarily make the terminology more complicated. In the present argumentation, it suffices to realize the difference between the two organizational levels of the text. Whether we are dealing with plays, novels or poetry, the words and actions of characters on the first level are always ‘presented’ in a particular way by a specific instance, be it an omniscient narrator, an ironic persona or a realist fiction, such as the ‘editor’ of a collection of letters. 4 The basic ideas underlying this analysis were first formulated and analysed by Ehlich (1983b).
450
W. can Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
speech
act: original
paraphrase # z =
U P I (where
U = utterance,
P = proposition,
U P I I = illocution)
Someone engaged in paraphrasing is expected to render the purport of the original faithfully, but to vary its utterance form, while some leeway is permitted with respect to its proposition (within certain constraints). Hence Juliet’s words may be paraphrased as: (a> Only when I perceive Romeo’s dead body shall I be at ease; (b) My mind will only be at peace when I behold a dead Romeo; or as: (c) My heart is dead until I behold Romeo; (d) Till I see Romeo, my feelings are quite dead. The example shows that in paraphrase a specific meaning (and therefore an interpretation) is created. This may cause yet other problems, to which we shall return. When looking back at Transcript 1, two things may be observed. Firstly, paraphrasing does occur according to the standard procedure as outlined: the teacher indeed changes the utterance form of the text radically, while trying to keep its general force, the illocution, constant. With regard to its propositional content, however, quite a few changes may be noticed. Moreover, it is useful to return to the earlier observation about the teacher’s awareness of the distance of his paraphrase vis-a-vis the original text. How should we understand this distance? The original text has: and the eyes in his head see the world spinning In paraphrase
round.
this becomes:
sees the earth
turning
round,
and sees it all.
In Lennon and McCartney’s text the eyes of the fool are seen as motionless, the Earth, however, as moving. This contrast evokes an image of the fool located at a Cartesian point outside the planet and looking down on it. This spatial and cosmic-visionary metaphor turns the existing order of things upside down. In everyday reality it is the fool who is looked at askance by the world. In the text, however, it is the world that is looked at somewhat pityingly by the fool. These poetic and social-political aspects of the original
451
W. uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
have largely evaporated in the paraphrase. Or rather, they have been mitigated to such a degree that what remains (“he’s got his own ideas about it, see?“) is but a triviality. The ‘sting’ has been taken out of the text. It is in all probability this contrast between the evocative power of the original poetic line and the informal, everyday register of the paraphrase that motivates the teacher to characterize his own utterance as ‘colloquial’. This raises the question why the teacher nevertheless chooses this colloquial register, and why he does not stick closer to the original in his paraphrase. The answer to this question may transpire in a passage from another lesson, dealing with a Renaissance poem. 5
5. Distance Transcript
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
T
Ps T
P, T Ps P Ps T P, T
between orginal and paraphrase 2
Who’s still got problems with the text? Who says, well, that, that word you haven’t listed, but I don’t get it either. (buzzing voices) What did you say, T.? ... ... Everybody understands what’s in the text? Then . . . P? This, uhm, “0 my heart, how come I from thy neck?” How do you imagine this yourself? (laughter, bustle) A very hard love bite. (loud laughter, noise) If you’d translate it literally, “Oh my heart”, what would “heart” mean? Well, that lover who (. . . . . .) Right, so, just a/well something nice, just like “darling” or . . . do I know what you would say. “How come I from thy neck?” How, uhm, how to break loose from you? . . . And he calls that a very hard love bite!
In this passage a pupil indicates that a certain part of the text is not clear to him. One pupil offers a paraphrase (line 121, which is ignored by the 5 It is the well-known love sonnets (regarding
‘Galathea’, a sonnet by P.C. Hooft (1581-1647), not unlike general content and structure) in the English tradition.
Elizabethan
452
W. uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
teacher (for obvious reasons). She then invites a paraphrase of “my heart” (lines 14-15), used figuratively here as a metaphor for the beloved, a meaning correctly identified by a pupil in line 16. This leads up to the teacher’s own paraphrase of the passage requested, in lines 20-21. However, the laughter and excitement in lines 11 and 13 indicate that the paraphrase, offered tongue-in-cheek in line 12, appeals to the pupils’ imagination. We witness a conflict between two praphrases here, one offered by a pupil (line 12), the other by the teacher (line 20). How to understand this conflict? The difference is mainly one of register. While the pupil has correctly identified the erotic associations of the poem, he is apparently unaware of the fact that love bites do not really figure overtly in seventeenth-century sonnets. Or perhaps he may surmise this to be the case, but he merely wants to have the laugh on his side. A correct paraphrase refers to the difficulty experienced by the lover to disengage himself from his beloved’s embrace. The pupil, however, takes “neck” literally and relates the lover’s difficulty to the suction power of a kiss, in the course of which the paraphrase acquires, on top of the erotic explicitness, something quite comical. It seems plausible that it is precisely the great distance from the lofty, elevated tone of the poem that makes the teacher reject the pupil’s paraphrase. Here the distinction introduced before comes into prominence: in the previous section it was shown how a paraphrase may be geared towards two different levels of organization in the (literary) text. It was also argued that this may cause marked differences, even conflicts, between paraphrases of the same text. At the local level, concerning the (evoked) interaction between the two lovers, the pupil’s paraphrase may hold some credibility. However, against our background knowledge of the culture that produced this type of love poetry in the seventeenth century, that is, on the more global level of the text’s general purport (as constructed by the ‘narrator’), such a paraphrase is not really acceptable. Neither the genre of the Petrarchan love sonnet, nor the conventional persona in Renaissance lyrical texts warrant a paraphrase of the kind advanced by the pupil in this lesson. It should not surprise us that the pupil does not know this (yet). Indeed that is (one reason) why there are literature classes. But because of the comical register introduced, the teacher can hardly afford to pursue this line any further. The pupil may thus be said to pervert the pattern of paraphrasing: instead of aiming it at a learning objective, he strategically subverts it by employing it for his own amusement and that of his peers. Paraphrase has become a demagogic instrument here. Perhaps this may be called unfortunate - albeit belonging to the everyday reality of the teaching profession - especially since such generic conventions as are at stake in the sonnet here are of particular importance in learning how to deal with texts. And precisely in this respect ample opportunities are provided for the development of reliable and flexible textual skills, so badly needed by readers in daily life.
W. uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
453
Again we must observe (concerning the previous discussion): the utterance form of the original text is drastically altered in paraphrase. Its propositional content is equally varied. In line with this, the illocution differs in both paraphrases: from a (rhetorical) request aimed at a lover, to the naming of an erotic activity. Exactly because these differences in illocutions, the teacher (given her knowledge of the cultural and historical context in which the poem originated) cannot but deem the pupil’s paraphrase as inadequate. This leads up to the conclusion that the text of the poem finds itself at great distance from the pupil’s everyday world. Presumably this is not very surprising. After all, the text was written four centuries ago, by someone belonging to the aristocracy, bringing thorough learning and refined elegance to the job, and employing a language strongly fashioned after classical and Italian literary models. All this creates a considerable temporal and psychosocial distance between text and reader. Somehow or other this distance must be bridged. On the one hand, some help in this respect may be expected from the teacher. That is indeed what one observes in the lesson: pupils are encouraged to demand specific clarifications of textual passages, and when necessary, the teacher provides a paraphrase. On the other hand, the pupils will also have to put in an effort. And that may be observed equally well: pupils do try to offer genuine paraphrases, as for instance in line 16 of the transcript. At the same time, however, the commotion surrounding the ‘perverted’ paraphrase (in line 12) shows how much the pupil’s everyday world is removed from that of the text. The awareness of this distance puts the teacher in an awkward position: the pupil’s distance to the text must be narrowed, but also the text itself should be done justice. This entails a considerable risk for the activity of paraphrasing: when the propositional content of the paraphrase deviates too far from that of the original text, all sorts of ruptures between original and paraphrase may occur. The teacher in Transcript 1 presumably was himself aware of such a rupture, and hence qualified his own paraphrase as ‘colloquial’. In Transcript 2 the paraphrase put forward by the pupil is so extremely ‘colloquial’ that it cannot be taken seriously by the teacher.
6. The dilemma
of (literary)
paraphrase
The conclusion seems warranted that paraphrasing in the literature class is in fact a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is a potential resource, perhaps even an indispensable one, to bridge the gap between the text and the (unexperienced) reader. On the other hand, paraphrasing always carries with it the danger that the original illocution is violated or bypassed. This danger is particularly high with literary texts, hence the almost ubiquitous
454
W. van Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
condemnation of literary paraphrase by (wo)men of letters, sion of which may be found in Coleridge (1817: 12):
‘whatever lines can be translated into other words of the same language of their significance . are so far vicious in their diction.’
an early expres-
without
diminution
One important reason for this lies in the presumed unity of form and content in literary texts. A poem whose content (proposition) is easily disconnected from its form (utterance) is usually not a very praiseworthy poem. In other words, changing (in paraphrase) the utterance form often means also, in the case of a poem, changing its (illocutionary) force. ’ In any case, there is strong empirical evidence that changes in utterance form of poetic texts result in significantly different effects upon readers; cf. Van Peer (1986, 1990). According to Nash (1986), however, this fact offers specific learning possibilities: paraphrasing allows us to call attention to the literary character of the text. The paraphrase directs our attention to the richness and poeticality of the original. And this is so because the paraphrase, whatever its merit, is almost always poorer than the original: less expressive and less economical, less poignant or biting, less creative or less innovative. Therefore Nash distinguishes, next to the interpretive, also the parodying paraphrase, i.e. one through which a (literary) text is (at first sight) ridiculed. In the act of parody the complexity or delicacy of the original may be brought out into the open. Such paraphrases may assist not only in understanding, but also in promoting literary appreciation. However, it is surprising in this respect (perhaps also somewhat worrying) that in none of the lessons recorded paraphrases are employed to this end. That seems to indicate that teachers of literature take it for granted that the paraphrasing of literary texts is both feasible and unproblematic. 7 Unlike Nash, who uses paraphrase almost in a literary (because de-automatized) way, most literature classes display a half-conscious routine in the use of paraphrase. In some cases this makes the distance between text and paraphrase quite marked, as we have seen in the lesson
6 In terms of Austin (1962), one could speak of a change in the ‘perlocutionary’ effect. Because the notion of perlocution is not unproblematic in speech act theory, it is not made use of here. ’ This is not to say, of course, that teachers generally would be totally unaware of the dangers of paraphrase. However, this awareness does not prevent them from becoming involved in the practice of ‘naive’ paraphrasing during teaching activities. It would be interesting to see whether in this respect differences could be observed with teachers in other countries, such as the US, for instance, where Cleanth Brooks’ views on ‘the heresy of paraphrase’ have been passed on to (future) teachers for many years.
W. uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
455
treating a seventeenth-century love poem. Another lesson, in which this danger is equally observable, is one in which an occasional poem ’ from the same period is studied. The verse-lines around which the interaction is centred, are: Soo dat ghy in witt Haer, en witter dan ick droegh, So that you, in white hair, and whiter than I had, Mooght seggen, als ick segg, Komt, Heere, ‘t is genoegh. may say, as I say, Come, Lord, ‘t is enough.
A transcription
of the classroom interaction
runs as follows:
Transcript 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
T p, T P1 T
p2 P1 p, T
Those last two lines, E., can you say something about these too? Well, uhm, yes ( . . . ) their hairs are getting greyer still ( . . . ) and ( . . . ) Yes, . . . who is this “lord”? That’s God. That’ s God, yes. In other words, that they will grow older still, he even hopes. And/but that they will also, just like he himself, will be able to say “Come Lord, ‘t is enough.” What does he, uhm, what does he express with this “Come Lord, ‘t is enough”? In what way does he see death? Does he see it as something nasty, or . . . ? No. Zmming voices) Not at all. He sees it as a life fulfilment, you could almost say. He says, “Well, it’s OK, right, I’ve seen enough of it all.”
The paraphrase in lines 3-10 runs according to the procedure observed before: the utterance form of the text is altered significantly in the paraphrase, while its illocution is largely left intact. Also the propositional * The poem is ‘Aen mijn’ kinder op mijn 89. verjaering’ (To my children, on my 89th birthday), by C. Huygens (1596-1687).
456
lK van Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
content is kept close to that of the original: “in white hair” is circumscribed as “their hairs are getting greyer still” (lines 3-4). Hence no real problems arise. These do come up, however, when the phrase “ ‘t is enough” is looked at in greater detail (lines 12-13). The pupils are clearly, given their reaction in lines 16-18, uncertain about it. And it is the teacher who (in lines 19-22) has to provide the paraphrase. But again its propositional content is a great distance removed from that of the original. One may even wonder whether Huygens’s central illocution is done justice. Especially the image of the fullness of a life, and the devout expression of resignation apparent in the phrase “Come Lord”, no longer figure in the paraphrase. Instead, we find (in lines 21-22) a formulation stressing rather negative experiences of ageing (“I’ve seen enough of it all”) and impatience (“Well, it’s OK, right”). It seems unlikely, though, that the teacher would seriously want to violate the text; 9 nor do we witness an instance of parodying paraphrase. We rather see the teacher being so much involved in ‘bridging the gap’ between text and reader that the ‘paraphrasing pressure’ becomes disproportionately high. In other words: the teacher’s assessment that the text is quite removed from her pupils’ daily concerns makes her resort to highly colloquial expressions, which, however, when compared to the style of the original, must inevitably be felt as banal. The teacher is thus caught in a dilemma. Whenever the distance between text and reader becomes too great, paraphrasing becomes necessary. And the ensuing paraphrase must be as close as possible to the world of the pupil. However, the more this succeeds, the more difficult it is to bridge the distance to the text! Paraphrasing is thus a paradoxical teaching resource. This is apparent in yet another particular. If indeed it was the poet’s intention to say “Well, it’s OK, right” - thus one may imagine the reaction of a somewhat bewildered pupil - then why does he not say so? And what, then, is the use of literature? Evidently only to make things difficult in order to give us, pupils, a hard time: what can be expressed equally well in everyday, colloquial language (considering the apparently unproblematic paraphrase) is written down by poets in a devilishly difficult manner. Why? That does not transpire in the paraphrase. To tease the pupils? To please the teacher? In brief: a paraphrase that does not meet the text halfway not only runs the risk of lacking its essential meaning, it is also in danger of violating its literary character. Whenever that happens, the act of paraphrasing be-
9 Again no distinction is made by the teacher between the two levels of textual organization. That is to be regretted, because it could have shown the pupils why Huygens preferred the formulation that he has chosen. The teacher’s paraphrase may sound convincing at the level of a character speaking in the text, not however at the more global level of an aristocratic Renaissance author attempting to create a noble effect in his audience.
W uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
comes self-subverting, instruction.
7. Conclusion
457
and is no longer able to function as a resource for
and outlook
The present article has described - on the basis of empirical observations some of the ways in which paraphrase occurs in literature classes. It emerged that the activity is teacher-initiated and carried out in the context of studying (especially older) poetry. In part, these activities differ from paraphrasing activities in daily life. Especially the fact that paraphrasing literary texts is usually aimed at ‘extracting’ the general, cultural significance of the text should be mentioned, besides the non-presence of a central interlocutor (i.e. the author) from the communicative situation. Although there are obvious reasons for engaging in paraphrase (clarifying the text, bringing home the ‘message’, locating its meaning in pupils’ frames of reference, . . .I it also emerged that there are limits to its applicability. These particularly concern (apart from the potential ‘perverted’ use made of it by pupils): (a) the ‘distance’ (in propositional content, register, or style) between paraphrase and original; (b) the level of textual organization to which it is applied (characters represented in the text vs. the text’s generic conventions as moulded by a ‘narrator’); (c) the more general risk of violating the literary character of the text. In general, teachers seem to be largely unaware of these limits and problems. This may be a reason for concern from a pructica2 perspective. In terms of literary instruction, such a lack of awareness is a source of inaccuracies, of misunderstandings, and hence of frustration. Any effort to improve this instruction would therefore benefit from a higher awareness on the part of the teachers of the possibilities and limitations of paraphrase. I see such an awareness as a prerequisite for overcoming the constraints under which teachers operate, mentioned at the beginning of this article. From a theoretical perspective, however, the description of paraphrasing activities in literature classes demonstrates the concrete way in which the educational institution contributes to the formation of specific forms of cultural knowledge and skills. The paraphrasing activities that teachers and pupils join in shape and even constitute what is ‘defined’ as specifically literary about texts. To begin with, the practice of paraphrasing promotes the idea that literary texts must be probed for their meanings; it consolidates the view that these texts do not yield their meaning in any usual way. Instead, they confront the reader with a cultural ‘riddle’ which s/he must be able to solve. To ‘read’ thus becomes: to search for hidden meanings; and this search is accomplished (partly) through the act of paraphrase. This practice thus entails a promise: that one will gain access to the text’s hidden meaning by
458
W. uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
providing the ‘right’ paraphrase. In more theoretical terms: because the text is foregrounded, the reading experience is alienated, creating uncertainty in the reader as to what the text is doing to him/her. This uncertainty must be taken away; the alienating experience must be mitigated, and paraphrase is the antidote. What, however, if that is the function that literary texts fulfil: to confront us with new views, to provide experiences that question our everyday beliefs and that are therefore (up to a certain degree) a source of alienation and uncertainty? If that is one of the major functions literature fufils in our culture - and there is some empirical evidence in favour of this theory (see Van Peer 1986), then paraphrasing partly witholds the reader that experience if it does not explicitly return to the text itself. In this respect, it may be significant that this is not what one finds in the data: after paraphrase (see the transcripts), the teacher as a rule moves on to another text passage to be paraphrased (though line 19 in Transcript 2 would seem to be an instance of such a return to the original text). This return behaviour acknowledges that the paraphrase is but a paraphrase, only an instrument to gain a better understanding of the text’s significance. It also recognizes that all our efforts must finally return to the source from which they sprung: the text and its cultural functioning.
References Austin, J., 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Baurmann, J. et al. (eds.), 1981. Neben-Kommunikation. Beobachtungen und Analysen zum nichtoffiziellen Schiilerverhalten innerhalb und auRerhalb des Unterrichts [Side-communication. Observations und analyses concerning informal pupil behaviour inside and outside school]. Braunschweig: Westermann. Brumfit, C.J. and R.A. Carter (eds.), 1986. Literature and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coleridge, S.T., 1975 [1817]. Biographia litteraria, ed. G. Watson. London and Melbourne: Dent. Cooper, C.R. (ed.), 1985. Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature: Points of departure. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Ehlich, K., 1983a. Kommunikation in Schule und Hochschule. (Communication in school and university. Tiibingen: Narr. Ehlich, K., 1983b. Text und sprachliches Handeln. Die Entstehung von Texten aus dem Bediirfnis nach ijberlieferung [Text and verbal action. The emergence of texts out of the need for tradition]. In: A. Assmann, J. Assmann and C. Hardmeier (eds.), Schrift und Gedkhtnis. Beitrage zur Archaologie der literarischen Kommunikation [Writing and memory. Contributions to the archaeology of literary communication], 24-43. Miinchen: Fink. Ehlich, K. and J. Rehbein, 1977. Wissen, kommunikatives Handeln und die Schule [Knowledge, communicative actions and the school]. In: H.C. Goeppert (ed.), Sprachverhalten im Unterricht [Language relationships in education], 36-114. Miinchen: Fink. Ehlich, K. and J. Rehbein, 1986a. Muster und Institutionen. Untersuchungen zur schulischen
W. uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
459
Kommunikation [Action patterns and institutions. Research into classroom communication]. Tubingen: Narr. Ehlich, K. and J. Rehbein, 1986b. Vom Problemlosen zum Aufgabenstellen. Wie ein Handlungsmuster schultauglich wird. [From problem solving to task assignment. How an action pattern becomes adapted to the school]. In: K. Ehlich and J. Rehbein 1986a, 8-29. Fairley, I., 1991. The reader’s need for convention. In: W. van Peer ted.), The taming of the text. Explorations in language, literature and culture, 292-316. London and New York: Routledge. Leech, G.N., 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, S., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mehan, H., 1979. Learning lessons. Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nash, W., 1986. The possibilities of paraphrase in the teaching of literary idiom. In: C.J. Brumfit and R.A. Carter teds.), 1986, 70-88. Parret, H., 1989. Paraphrase as a coherence principle in conversation. In: M.-E. Conte, J.S. Petofi and E. Siizer (eds.), Text and discourse connectedness, 281-289. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Peer, W. van, 1986. Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London: Croom Helm. Peer, W. van, 1989. Oral reading practice: An institutional constraint on the development of functional literacy. In: E. Zuanelli (ed.), Literacy in school and society. Multidisciplinary perspectives, 221-233. New York: Plenum Books. Peer, W. van, 1990. The measurement of metre: Its cognitive and affective functions. Poetics 19, 259-275 Purves, A.C. and R. Beach, 1972. Literature and the reader: Research in response to literature, reading interests, and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Redder, A., 1983. Kommunikation in der Schule - zum Forschungsstand seit Mitte der siebziger Jahre [Classroom communication: A state of the art since the mid-seventies]. OBST (Osnabriicker Beitrage zur Sprachtheorie) 24, 118-144. Regan, J., 1983. Weltweite Entwicklungen der Analyse von Diskursen im Klassenzimmer [Worldwide developments in the analysis of classroom discourse]. In: K. Ehlich and J. Rehbein teds.), 1983, 261-274. Rehbein, J., 1977. Komplexes Handeln [Complex actions]. Stuttgart: Metzler. Searle, J., 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Short, M.H. (ed.), 1989. Reading, analysing and teaching literature. London: Longman. Sinclair, J. and M. Co&hard, 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wieler, P., 1989. Sprachliches Handeln im Literaturunterricht als didaktisches Problem [Discourse in literature classes as a didactic problem]. Bern: Peter Lang. Wimsatt, W.K. and M.C. Beardsley, 1954. The intentional fallacy. In: The verbal icon. Studies in the meaning of poetry. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.
443-459
Paraphrase
443
as paradox in literary education *
W. van Peer
The present paper reports on an exploratory investigation of classroom interactions in literary education, with special attention given to the activity of paraphrasing. It turns out that such activities occur regularly, especially in lessons concerning older literature and poetry. The activity is teacher-initiated. The pattern of paraphrasing in literature classes also differs from that in everyday life, in that it is geared (standardly) at what is considered by the teacher to be the ‘deeper’ meaning of the text. Problematic in teachers’ paraphrases is that they are usually directed at the text’s semantic organization, while often neglecting its pragmatic force, such as its illocution or its narrative ‘voice’. Furthermore, paraphrases are often felt to conflict with the intention and style of the original text. Where this distance between paraphrase and original becomes large, the activity of paraphrasing may become counter-productive as an instructional means.
1. Literary learning
Over the past decades, literary studies have become increasingly conscious of the important role social institutions play in the production and distribution of literature. We have similarly become aware of the impact these institutions (may> have on individuals’ and groups’ expectations vis-a-vis literature. Readers’ knowledge of literature, as well as their attitudes towards it, are largely a product of encounters not only with texts, but also with texts about literary texts, and above all with people passing on or monitoring ideas and values concerning these texts and their traditions. A significant portion of such ‘literary’ interaction takes place within the boundaries of particular social institutions, of which the family, the school, the mass media and the institutionalized religions are the most relevant ones. The emergence of the individual’s literary competence and motivation is shaped by the institutions s/he has gone through. From a sociological point of view, then, institutions play an important role in the formation of literary culture. Consequently, knowledge of the respective processes taking place within those institutions is Correspondence to: W. van Peer, Department of Literary Studies, Muntstraat 4, 3512 EV Utrecht, The Netherlands. * This paper benefited greatly from the comments of two anonymous reviewers, whom I hereby wish to thank. 0304-422X/93/$06.00
0 1993 - Elsevier
Science
Publishers
B.V. All rights reserved
W. can Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
444
of paramount importance for an adequate sociology of literature. Important this may be, but relatively little work has been done in this respect. Astonishingly little information is available about the concrete institutional practices through which an individual is socialized into literary understanding and taste. The present article goes some way in exploring the particular ways in which talking (and thinking) about literature takes place in the classroom. Because the formation of ideas concerning literature is for a considerable amount the work of the school, a concentration on the educational institution may help us to more accurately perceive the ways literature comes to manifest itself in the lives of individuals. Such perceptions may subsequently improve the validity of our theories concerning the functioning of literature in society.
2. Classroom
interaction
The starting point for the present investigation is the premise that classroom communication differs non-trivially from everyday interaction outside the educational institution, and that it organizes itself in a way largely uncontrolled by participants (teachers and pupils). Such an assertion may cause surprise. In what way is this organization ‘uncontrolled’? Is it not against our intuitions to doubt teachers’ ultimate control over their classes? And have the educational reforms that most western countries have gone through during the past decades not been founded on precisely this idea, that the teacher has a broad spectrum of alternative actions from which s/he may choose freely? Unfortunately, this idea must be rejected as rather naive. Classroom communication may leave teachers precious little room for manoeuvring, precisely because it is prestructured to a surprisingly high degree, thus narrowing the scope for individual decisions (of both teachers and pupils). These structures, moreover, seem to be generated spontaneously, often without participants’ being in any way conscious of these processes. This view can be easily illustrated with reference to questions. In everyday interactions, the situation in which questions are asked, may be characterized as follows. A speaker sollicits some information not at his/her disposal from a hearer. Generally two possible scenarios may be enacted: (1) the hearer knows the information requested or (2) s/he does not. If (1) then the hearer will normally communicate this to the speaker, who then thanks him/her. If (21, the hearer will apologize for not having the requested information available, after which the original speaker may solicit the information required from another hearer. In school (at least at the primary and secondary levels), however, questions are asked predominantly by teachers: contrary to everyday practice, the possibilities for questioning are not distributed symmetrically across participants. Secondly, and more importantly, the speaker, i.e. the teacher, does not
W ~‘anPeer / Paraphrase as paradox
445
usually request information which s/he does not already possess, and the hearer, i.e. the pupil, is normally aware of this. Again two possibilities pertain: either the pupil knows the answer, or does not. However, in neither case do apologies or acts of thanking occur. Furthermore, any answers given by the hearer are in this case evaluated explicitly by the speaker. Finally, this feedback of the teacher does not necessarily mean the end of questioning: usually s/he has a whole battery of questions ready at hand. What all this amounts to, is the observation that a question is not necessarily a question. Research into classroom interaction has amply demonstrated its highly specific characteristics; see, for instance, Baurmann et al. (1981), Mehan (1979). For a review of the literature, see Redder (19831, Regan (1983); Wieler (1989) has highlighted such aspects of communicative processes with reference to literature classes. The example of questioning, demonstrating differences between everyday and classroom interaction may be complemented with others. In this case we were dealing with a relatively simple verbal activity, in which only a few utterances were exchanged. Research has shown that education also employs much more complex constellations. Since Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) published their study, this has been demonstrated time and again; see Redder (1983) for a review. One could speak in this respect of patterns into which the verbal interaction organizes itself. A clear example of such a pattern is the setting of a problem (by the teacher) and the subsequent (attempts at) solving the problem (by the pupils); see Ehlich and Rehbein (1986b). Again the interaction is largely institution-specific. Research into the way these patterns of linguistic activity function within the educational institution has been developed especially by Ehlich and Rehbein (1977, 1986a), Ehlich (1983a). Which patterns operate in education is an empirical question, the answers to which cannot be produced in advance, but are the objects of research. With respect to literary education, few, if any, materials enabling a qualified answer to the preceding question are available; but see Cooper (19851, Fairley (19911, Van Peer (19891, Purves and Beach (19721, Short (19891, Wieler (1989). The present article concentrates on one particular pattern occurring regularly in literature classes, i.e. that of paraphrasing. Before turning to its analysis, however, something must be said about the research materials used. As a first step towards a study of action patterns in literary education, a modest, but well-documented set of materials was compiled. Fourteen literature classes, taught by ten different teachers in grade 4 of secondary schools were video-recorded. Geographically speaking, the schools were distributed rather evenly over various areas of the Netherlands. While observing the lessons, special attention was given to instructive strategies, teaching materials used, to classroom interaction and to timing. Further information col-
W. can Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
446
lected referred to teaching aids (including audiovisual), types of texts treated, and the teachers’ general pedagogical style and perspective. Of each of the lessons recorded the general organizational structure was documented, while for each lesson one or two excerpts that were considered promising were written out in more detailed protocols. These passages seem to be as representative for the lessons concerned as is possible on this scale. ’ Inspection of the data thus gathered revealed one particular pattern to occur rather regularly in the lessons, and which up to a certain degree seems to be a specific pattern for classes about literature, i.e. paraphrasing. In what follows, we shall concentrate on those lessons in which paraphrasing activities occur.
3. Paraphrase One of the activities pupils and teachers regularly engage in during the lessons recorded, is rephrasing textual passages in their own words. This is a linguistic activity occurring outside school as well, for instance in conversations of the following kind: A: So what did you say? B: I said I did not like it. What B does here, is paraphrasing her previous words. Her intended meaning may be read into it, not however her precise words. Hence the classic definition of paraphrase ‘. . . it is an operation which consists of producing a discursive unit which is semantically equivalent to another unit previously produced’ (Parrett 1989: 281). As Parret convincingly demonstrates, paraphrase occurs regularly in everyday discourse, where it serves the need of specifying each others’ ideas and intentions and of controlling the topic of the conversation and its development: ‘one of the main cooperative strategies between interlocutors is their willingness to paraphrase in order to clarify each other’s conceptions of the object of conversation’ (p. 288). In at least two respects the activity of paraphrasing in school is structured differently from instances in everyday interaction. Firstly, the paraphrasing occurs with respect to the words and intentions of persons not present in the interactive situation, often even of persons no longer alive (and whose communicative intentions are no longer directly accessible). Secondly, and more importantly, the paraphrases are not aimed at the practical elucidation ’ This makes the this stage was an did look, however, like to thank Fred
collection limited in scope and representativeness of the data. Our objective at explorative one, and the analyses of the data have mainly a heuristic value. I at all interactions in which aspects of paraphrase could be observed. I should Marschall, with whose help the data were collected.
W uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
447
of communicative problems, but rather at uncovering the ‘deeper’ layers of meaning, which are not apparent at first sight, and which may even not have been intended by its author; cf. Wimsatt and Beardsley (1954). Thus, in literature classes the activity of paraphrasing is geared at texts which do not readily yield their ‘deeper’ meaning. The examples which will be provided also show that paraphrases, like questions, may be employed in the classroom in order to check whether the pupil has actually understood the text under consideration. Paraphrase normally serves understanding. Comprehension of a text may be passed on or enhanced by means of a paraphrase. As a typical example of this, consider the following protocol from one of the lessons: ’ Transcript 1
1 T Look, how is it in ‘The Fool on the Hill’? 2 Isn’t it the case that this man on top of that mountain 3 sees that/sees the earth turning round, and sees it all 4 and, right/he’s got his own ideas about it, see 5 so you might perhaps say - yeah - somewhat colloquially. In this lesson, in which Lennon and McCartney’s song is compared to a Dutch adaptation by the poet Rutger Kopland, the teacher paraphrases the original lines But the Fool on the hill sees the sun going down and the eyes in his head see the world spinning round. Apparently the teacher assumes the text not to be sufficiently transparent to the pupils. Note, however, that the teacher displays an awareness of his own paraphrasing activities. That, at least, is what one gathers from line 5 in the transcription: the words ‘colloquially’, ‘perhaps’ and ‘might’ indicate the teacher’s conciousness that his paraphrase is - in comparison to the original text - somehow deficient. This relates to the distance between paraphrase and original, an aspect to which we shall return instantly. At this point it may be noted that the various paraphrasing activities are not distributed evenly over the lessons observed. In some, hardly any or even none could be observed. One of the lessons displays incidental occurrences, while in two lessons one encounters a relatively high proportion of paraphrases. Presumably it is no accident that in both these lessons older texts, in ’ Symbols used: T = teacher; P = pupil (when several pupils take part in the verbal interaction, numbers or initials are used to identify them); Ps = pupils; t.. .I = not understandable (e.g. because of noise, interference of other sounds, or poor recording quality); . = short pause; / = anacohtthon. For ease of reference, protocol lines are numbered. Texts are translations, as close as possible, of the original protocols in Dutch.
448
W. van Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
which the language itself already causes comprehension problems, are being read. Nor should one think it accidental that these lessons deal with poetry: most poetic texts are - amongst other things - characterized by a high semantic density, a strong concentration of ideas, and an unusual degree of contemplation. In lessons dealing with narrative texts, paraphrase occurs but incidentally, at most relating to a single word or expression. In this sense one must conclude that teachers employ the pattern of paraphrasing in a strategic manner: it is put to use when the text itself demands it. This implies that one could expect the teacher to generally initiate the pattern. This is indeed borne out by the data. In none of the observed lessons do pupils spontaneously take the lead in paraphrasing a text passage. In other words, the deployment of the pattern is based upon assessments made by the teacher.
4. Paraphrase
as speech act
At this point it may be useful to consider the activity of paraphrasing in more detail from the vantage point of speech act theory; cf. Austin (1962), Leech (19831, Levinson (19831, Rehbein (19771, Searle (1969). Formulated from the speaker’s perspective, at least the following acts are to be performed in order to carry out a speech act: the speaker utters a series of sounds (utterance) in a way which corresponds conventionally to specific meanings (proposition), and in doing so tries to pursue a particular social aim (illocution). Someone who, for instance, communicates to his room-mate It’s very close in here does so by uttering sounds which have a particular meaning in English. At the same time, the speaker attempts to realize a specific aim, for instance that his room-mate will open a window, or stop smoking. When applying this threefold division to the act of paraphrasing, we may see that it carries out an operation between two (series of) speech acts, in which the relations between the three dimensions is of special importance. Let us look at an example: Indeed I never shall be satisfied with Romeo, till I behold him - dead Is my poor heart . . . . . . (Romeo and Juliet, III, v, 93-95) If we wish to paraphrase the text, we are faced with a problem from the very start. Are we to take Juliet’s words as they are meant for her mother, or as we - readers or spectators - are inclined to understand them on the basis of what we know of the play in general? The difference is not a trivial one. In
W van Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
449
the former case, ‘dead’ applies to Romeo, in the latter to ‘my poor heart’. The former would be an expression of hate, the latter one of love. The double entendre here reveals a fundamental characteristic of literary texts, i.e. their dual action structure. At a first structural level, literary texts represent various characters who speak, feel, act. Thus in the passage just quoted Juliet interacts with her mother. At the same time, however, there is an (often almost invisible) hand behind these characters, setting up the scenes and pulling the strings. This ‘narrator’ 3 (who need not be identical to the author) presents characters’ actions or words in a specific way: neutrally, emphatically, ironically, and so on. In the Shakespeare quotation, this ‘narrator’ makes us, the audience, see through Juliet’s game, so that we may derive her second meaning both from the immediate situation she finds herself in and from what we have witnessed her do before. Now paraphrase may be geared at either of these two organizational levels of the text. One may paraphrase words or sentences uttered by characters, or one may paraphrase textual elements belonging to the world of the ‘narrator’. It is therefore surprising that in none of the observed lessons an awareness of this difference between organizational levels could be found. In fact, only paraphrases on the first level, i.e. that of the characters, could be observed. We shall later see how this may create serious problems in the use of paraphrasing. In trying to provide a rough paraphrase of Juliet’s words, one will inevitably have to retain her intentions intact in the paraphrase. In other words: a paraphrase will attempt to reproduce the illocution of the original as close as possible. This fidelity to the original does not apply, however, to the utterance form. On the contrary: a paraphrase is characterized by the fact that it is not the exact wording of the original that is repeated. (If one does not vary the utterance form, we call this a repetition, not a paraphrase.) Concerning the propositional content, the matter is not so clear. It is not forbidden to deviate from the original propositions. Yet too great a deviation may make it more difficult to retain the original illocution. The foregoing may be summarized as a set of conditions 4 operating on the paraphrasing
s Needless to say, I am using the term ‘narrator’ here in a loose sense, referring to any figure presenting the first level action. The term ‘presentation figure’ may be more adequate in this respect, but I have preferred not to unnecessarily make the terminology more complicated. In the present argumentation, it suffices to realize the difference between the two organizational levels of the text. Whether we are dealing with plays, novels or poetry, the words and actions of characters on the first level are always ‘presented’ in a particular way by a specific instance, be it an omniscient narrator, an ironic persona or a realist fiction, such as the ‘editor’ of a collection of letters. 4 The basic ideas underlying this analysis were first formulated and analysed by Ehlich (1983b).
450
W. can Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
speech
act: original
paraphrase # z =
U P I (where
U = utterance,
P = proposition,
U P I I = illocution)
Someone engaged in paraphrasing is expected to render the purport of the original faithfully, but to vary its utterance form, while some leeway is permitted with respect to its proposition (within certain constraints). Hence Juliet’s words may be paraphrased as: (a> Only when I perceive Romeo’s dead body shall I be at ease; (b) My mind will only be at peace when I behold a dead Romeo; or as: (c) My heart is dead until I behold Romeo; (d) Till I see Romeo, my feelings are quite dead. The example shows that in paraphrase a specific meaning (and therefore an interpretation) is created. This may cause yet other problems, to which we shall return. When looking back at Transcript 1, two things may be observed. Firstly, paraphrasing does occur according to the standard procedure as outlined: the teacher indeed changes the utterance form of the text radically, while trying to keep its general force, the illocution, constant. With regard to its propositional content, however, quite a few changes may be noticed. Moreover, it is useful to return to the earlier observation about the teacher’s awareness of the distance of his paraphrase vis-a-vis the original text. How should we understand this distance? The original text has: and the eyes in his head see the world spinning In paraphrase
round.
this becomes:
sees the earth
turning
round,
and sees it all.
In Lennon and McCartney’s text the eyes of the fool are seen as motionless, the Earth, however, as moving. This contrast evokes an image of the fool located at a Cartesian point outside the planet and looking down on it. This spatial and cosmic-visionary metaphor turns the existing order of things upside down. In everyday reality it is the fool who is looked at askance by the world. In the text, however, it is the world that is looked at somewhat pityingly by the fool. These poetic and social-political aspects of the original
451
W. uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
have largely evaporated in the paraphrase. Or rather, they have been mitigated to such a degree that what remains (“he’s got his own ideas about it, see?“) is but a triviality. The ‘sting’ has been taken out of the text. It is in all probability this contrast between the evocative power of the original poetic line and the informal, everyday register of the paraphrase that motivates the teacher to characterize his own utterance as ‘colloquial’. This raises the question why the teacher nevertheless chooses this colloquial register, and why he does not stick closer to the original in his paraphrase. The answer to this question may transpire in a passage from another lesson, dealing with a Renaissance poem. 5
5. Distance Transcript
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
T
Ps T
P, T Ps P Ps T P, T
between orginal and paraphrase 2
Who’s still got problems with the text? Who says, well, that, that word you haven’t listed, but I don’t get it either. (buzzing voices) What did you say, T.? ... ... Everybody understands what’s in the text? Then . . . P? This, uhm, “0 my heart, how come I from thy neck?” How do you imagine this yourself? (laughter, bustle) A very hard love bite. (loud laughter, noise) If you’d translate it literally, “Oh my heart”, what would “heart” mean? Well, that lover who (. . . . . .) Right, so, just a/well something nice, just like “darling” or . . . do I know what you would say. “How come I from thy neck?” How, uhm, how to break loose from you? . . . And he calls that a very hard love bite!
In this passage a pupil indicates that a certain part of the text is not clear to him. One pupil offers a paraphrase (line 121, which is ignored by the 5 It is the well-known love sonnets (regarding
‘Galathea’, a sonnet by P.C. Hooft (1581-1647), not unlike general content and structure) in the English tradition.
Elizabethan
452
W. uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
teacher (for obvious reasons). She then invites a paraphrase of “my heart” (lines 14-15), used figuratively here as a metaphor for the beloved, a meaning correctly identified by a pupil in line 16. This leads up to the teacher’s own paraphrase of the passage requested, in lines 20-21. However, the laughter and excitement in lines 11 and 13 indicate that the paraphrase, offered tongue-in-cheek in line 12, appeals to the pupils’ imagination. We witness a conflict between two praphrases here, one offered by a pupil (line 12), the other by the teacher (line 20). How to understand this conflict? The difference is mainly one of register. While the pupil has correctly identified the erotic associations of the poem, he is apparently unaware of the fact that love bites do not really figure overtly in seventeenth-century sonnets. Or perhaps he may surmise this to be the case, but he merely wants to have the laugh on his side. A correct paraphrase refers to the difficulty experienced by the lover to disengage himself from his beloved’s embrace. The pupil, however, takes “neck” literally and relates the lover’s difficulty to the suction power of a kiss, in the course of which the paraphrase acquires, on top of the erotic explicitness, something quite comical. It seems plausible that it is precisely the great distance from the lofty, elevated tone of the poem that makes the teacher reject the pupil’s paraphrase. Here the distinction introduced before comes into prominence: in the previous section it was shown how a paraphrase may be geared towards two different levels of organization in the (literary) text. It was also argued that this may cause marked differences, even conflicts, between paraphrases of the same text. At the local level, concerning the (evoked) interaction between the two lovers, the pupil’s paraphrase may hold some credibility. However, against our background knowledge of the culture that produced this type of love poetry in the seventeenth century, that is, on the more global level of the text’s general purport (as constructed by the ‘narrator’), such a paraphrase is not really acceptable. Neither the genre of the Petrarchan love sonnet, nor the conventional persona in Renaissance lyrical texts warrant a paraphrase of the kind advanced by the pupil in this lesson. It should not surprise us that the pupil does not know this (yet). Indeed that is (one reason) why there are literature classes. But because of the comical register introduced, the teacher can hardly afford to pursue this line any further. The pupil may thus be said to pervert the pattern of paraphrasing: instead of aiming it at a learning objective, he strategically subverts it by employing it for his own amusement and that of his peers. Paraphrase has become a demagogic instrument here. Perhaps this may be called unfortunate - albeit belonging to the everyday reality of the teaching profession - especially since such generic conventions as are at stake in the sonnet here are of particular importance in learning how to deal with texts. And precisely in this respect ample opportunities are provided for the development of reliable and flexible textual skills, so badly needed by readers in daily life.
W. uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
453
Again we must observe (concerning the previous discussion): the utterance form of the original text is drastically altered in paraphrase. Its propositional content is equally varied. In line with this, the illocution differs in both paraphrases: from a (rhetorical) request aimed at a lover, to the naming of an erotic activity. Exactly because these differences in illocutions, the teacher (given her knowledge of the cultural and historical context in which the poem originated) cannot but deem the pupil’s paraphrase as inadequate. This leads up to the conclusion that the text of the poem finds itself at great distance from the pupil’s everyday world. Presumably this is not very surprising. After all, the text was written four centuries ago, by someone belonging to the aristocracy, bringing thorough learning and refined elegance to the job, and employing a language strongly fashioned after classical and Italian literary models. All this creates a considerable temporal and psychosocial distance between text and reader. Somehow or other this distance must be bridged. On the one hand, some help in this respect may be expected from the teacher. That is indeed what one observes in the lesson: pupils are encouraged to demand specific clarifications of textual passages, and when necessary, the teacher provides a paraphrase. On the other hand, the pupils will also have to put in an effort. And that may be observed equally well: pupils do try to offer genuine paraphrases, as for instance in line 16 of the transcript. At the same time, however, the commotion surrounding the ‘perverted’ paraphrase (in line 12) shows how much the pupil’s everyday world is removed from that of the text. The awareness of this distance puts the teacher in an awkward position: the pupil’s distance to the text must be narrowed, but also the text itself should be done justice. This entails a considerable risk for the activity of paraphrasing: when the propositional content of the paraphrase deviates too far from that of the original text, all sorts of ruptures between original and paraphrase may occur. The teacher in Transcript 1 presumably was himself aware of such a rupture, and hence qualified his own paraphrase as ‘colloquial’. In Transcript 2 the paraphrase put forward by the pupil is so extremely ‘colloquial’ that it cannot be taken seriously by the teacher.
6. The dilemma
of (literary)
paraphrase
The conclusion seems warranted that paraphrasing in the literature class is in fact a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is a potential resource, perhaps even an indispensable one, to bridge the gap between the text and the (unexperienced) reader. On the other hand, paraphrasing always carries with it the danger that the original illocution is violated or bypassed. This danger is particularly high with literary texts, hence the almost ubiquitous
454
W. van Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
condemnation of literary paraphrase by (wo)men of letters, sion of which may be found in Coleridge (1817: 12):
‘whatever lines can be translated into other words of the same language of their significance . are so far vicious in their diction.’
an early expres-
without
diminution
One important reason for this lies in the presumed unity of form and content in literary texts. A poem whose content (proposition) is easily disconnected from its form (utterance) is usually not a very praiseworthy poem. In other words, changing (in paraphrase) the utterance form often means also, in the case of a poem, changing its (illocutionary) force. ’ In any case, there is strong empirical evidence that changes in utterance form of poetic texts result in significantly different effects upon readers; cf. Van Peer (1986, 1990). According to Nash (1986), however, this fact offers specific learning possibilities: paraphrasing allows us to call attention to the literary character of the text. The paraphrase directs our attention to the richness and poeticality of the original. And this is so because the paraphrase, whatever its merit, is almost always poorer than the original: less expressive and less economical, less poignant or biting, less creative or less innovative. Therefore Nash distinguishes, next to the interpretive, also the parodying paraphrase, i.e. one through which a (literary) text is (at first sight) ridiculed. In the act of parody the complexity or delicacy of the original may be brought out into the open. Such paraphrases may assist not only in understanding, but also in promoting literary appreciation. However, it is surprising in this respect (perhaps also somewhat worrying) that in none of the lessons recorded paraphrases are employed to this end. That seems to indicate that teachers of literature take it for granted that the paraphrasing of literary texts is both feasible and unproblematic. 7 Unlike Nash, who uses paraphrase almost in a literary (because de-automatized) way, most literature classes display a half-conscious routine in the use of paraphrase. In some cases this makes the distance between text and paraphrase quite marked, as we have seen in the lesson
6 In terms of Austin (1962), one could speak of a change in the ‘perlocutionary’ effect. Because the notion of perlocution is not unproblematic in speech act theory, it is not made use of here. ’ This is not to say, of course, that teachers generally would be totally unaware of the dangers of paraphrase. However, this awareness does not prevent them from becoming involved in the practice of ‘naive’ paraphrasing during teaching activities. It would be interesting to see whether in this respect differences could be observed with teachers in other countries, such as the US, for instance, where Cleanth Brooks’ views on ‘the heresy of paraphrase’ have been passed on to (future) teachers for many years.
W. uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
455
treating a seventeenth-century love poem. Another lesson, in which this danger is equally observable, is one in which an occasional poem ’ from the same period is studied. The verse-lines around which the interaction is centred, are: Soo dat ghy in witt Haer, en witter dan ick droegh, So that you, in white hair, and whiter than I had, Mooght seggen, als ick segg, Komt, Heere, ‘t is genoegh. may say, as I say, Come, Lord, ‘t is enough.
A transcription
of the classroom interaction
runs as follows:
Transcript 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
T p, T P1 T
p2 P1 p, T
Those last two lines, E., can you say something about these too? Well, uhm, yes ( . . . ) their hairs are getting greyer still ( . . . ) and ( . . . ) Yes, . . . who is this “lord”? That’s God. That’ s God, yes. In other words, that they will grow older still, he even hopes. And/but that they will also, just like he himself, will be able to say “Come Lord, ‘t is enough.” What does he, uhm, what does he express with this “Come Lord, ‘t is enough”? In what way does he see death? Does he see it as something nasty, or . . . ? No. Zmming voices) Not at all. He sees it as a life fulfilment, you could almost say. He says, “Well, it’s OK, right, I’ve seen enough of it all.”
The paraphrase in lines 3-10 runs according to the procedure observed before: the utterance form of the text is altered significantly in the paraphrase, while its illocution is largely left intact. Also the propositional * The poem is ‘Aen mijn’ kinder op mijn 89. verjaering’ (To my children, on my 89th birthday), by C. Huygens (1596-1687).
456
lK van Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
content is kept close to that of the original: “in white hair” is circumscribed as “their hairs are getting greyer still” (lines 3-4). Hence no real problems arise. These do come up, however, when the phrase “ ‘t is enough” is looked at in greater detail (lines 12-13). The pupils are clearly, given their reaction in lines 16-18, uncertain about it. And it is the teacher who (in lines 19-22) has to provide the paraphrase. But again its propositional content is a great distance removed from that of the original. One may even wonder whether Huygens’s central illocution is done justice. Especially the image of the fullness of a life, and the devout expression of resignation apparent in the phrase “Come Lord”, no longer figure in the paraphrase. Instead, we find (in lines 21-22) a formulation stressing rather negative experiences of ageing (“I’ve seen enough of it all”) and impatience (“Well, it’s OK, right”). It seems unlikely, though, that the teacher would seriously want to violate the text; 9 nor do we witness an instance of parodying paraphrase. We rather see the teacher being so much involved in ‘bridging the gap’ between text and reader that the ‘paraphrasing pressure’ becomes disproportionately high. In other words: the teacher’s assessment that the text is quite removed from her pupils’ daily concerns makes her resort to highly colloquial expressions, which, however, when compared to the style of the original, must inevitably be felt as banal. The teacher is thus caught in a dilemma. Whenever the distance between text and reader becomes too great, paraphrasing becomes necessary. And the ensuing paraphrase must be as close as possible to the world of the pupil. However, the more this succeeds, the more difficult it is to bridge the distance to the text! Paraphrasing is thus a paradoxical teaching resource. This is apparent in yet another particular. If indeed it was the poet’s intention to say “Well, it’s OK, right” - thus one may imagine the reaction of a somewhat bewildered pupil - then why does he not say so? And what, then, is the use of literature? Evidently only to make things difficult in order to give us, pupils, a hard time: what can be expressed equally well in everyday, colloquial language (considering the apparently unproblematic paraphrase) is written down by poets in a devilishly difficult manner. Why? That does not transpire in the paraphrase. To tease the pupils? To please the teacher? In brief: a paraphrase that does not meet the text halfway not only runs the risk of lacking its essential meaning, it is also in danger of violating its literary character. Whenever that happens, the act of paraphrasing be-
9 Again no distinction is made by the teacher between the two levels of textual organization. That is to be regretted, because it could have shown the pupils why Huygens preferred the formulation that he has chosen. The teacher’s paraphrase may sound convincing at the level of a character speaking in the text, not however at the more global level of an aristocratic Renaissance author attempting to create a noble effect in his audience.
W uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
comes self-subverting, instruction.
7. Conclusion
457
and is no longer able to function as a resource for
and outlook
The present article has described - on the basis of empirical observations some of the ways in which paraphrase occurs in literature classes. It emerged that the activity is teacher-initiated and carried out in the context of studying (especially older) poetry. In part, these activities differ from paraphrasing activities in daily life. Especially the fact that paraphrasing literary texts is usually aimed at ‘extracting’ the general, cultural significance of the text should be mentioned, besides the non-presence of a central interlocutor (i.e. the author) from the communicative situation. Although there are obvious reasons for engaging in paraphrase (clarifying the text, bringing home the ‘message’, locating its meaning in pupils’ frames of reference, . . .I it also emerged that there are limits to its applicability. These particularly concern (apart from the potential ‘perverted’ use made of it by pupils): (a) the ‘distance’ (in propositional content, register, or style) between paraphrase and original; (b) the level of textual organization to which it is applied (characters represented in the text vs. the text’s generic conventions as moulded by a ‘narrator’); (c) the more general risk of violating the literary character of the text. In general, teachers seem to be largely unaware of these limits and problems. This may be a reason for concern from a pructica2 perspective. In terms of literary instruction, such a lack of awareness is a source of inaccuracies, of misunderstandings, and hence of frustration. Any effort to improve this instruction would therefore benefit from a higher awareness on the part of the teachers of the possibilities and limitations of paraphrase. I see such an awareness as a prerequisite for overcoming the constraints under which teachers operate, mentioned at the beginning of this article. From a theoretical perspective, however, the description of paraphrasing activities in literature classes demonstrates the concrete way in which the educational institution contributes to the formation of specific forms of cultural knowledge and skills. The paraphrasing activities that teachers and pupils join in shape and even constitute what is ‘defined’ as specifically literary about texts. To begin with, the practice of paraphrasing promotes the idea that literary texts must be probed for their meanings; it consolidates the view that these texts do not yield their meaning in any usual way. Instead, they confront the reader with a cultural ‘riddle’ which s/he must be able to solve. To ‘read’ thus becomes: to search for hidden meanings; and this search is accomplished (partly) through the act of paraphrase. This practice thus entails a promise: that one will gain access to the text’s hidden meaning by
458
W. uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
providing the ‘right’ paraphrase. In more theoretical terms: because the text is foregrounded, the reading experience is alienated, creating uncertainty in the reader as to what the text is doing to him/her. This uncertainty must be taken away; the alienating experience must be mitigated, and paraphrase is the antidote. What, however, if that is the function that literary texts fulfil: to confront us with new views, to provide experiences that question our everyday beliefs and that are therefore (up to a certain degree) a source of alienation and uncertainty? If that is one of the major functions literature fufils in our culture - and there is some empirical evidence in favour of this theory (see Van Peer 1986), then paraphrasing partly witholds the reader that experience if it does not explicitly return to the text itself. In this respect, it may be significant that this is not what one finds in the data: after paraphrase (see the transcripts), the teacher as a rule moves on to another text passage to be paraphrased (though line 19 in Transcript 2 would seem to be an instance of such a return to the original text). This return behaviour acknowledges that the paraphrase is but a paraphrase, only an instrument to gain a better understanding of the text’s significance. It also recognizes that all our efforts must finally return to the source from which they sprung: the text and its cultural functioning.
References Austin, J., 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Baurmann, J. et al. (eds.), 1981. Neben-Kommunikation. Beobachtungen und Analysen zum nichtoffiziellen Schiilerverhalten innerhalb und auRerhalb des Unterrichts [Side-communication. Observations und analyses concerning informal pupil behaviour inside and outside school]. Braunschweig: Westermann. Brumfit, C.J. and R.A. Carter (eds.), 1986. Literature and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coleridge, S.T., 1975 [1817]. Biographia litteraria, ed. G. Watson. London and Melbourne: Dent. Cooper, C.R. (ed.), 1985. Researching response to literature and the teaching of literature: Points of departure. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Ehlich, K., 1983a. Kommunikation in Schule und Hochschule. (Communication in school and university. Tiibingen: Narr. Ehlich, K., 1983b. Text und sprachliches Handeln. Die Entstehung von Texten aus dem Bediirfnis nach ijberlieferung [Text and verbal action. The emergence of texts out of the need for tradition]. In: A. Assmann, J. Assmann and C. Hardmeier (eds.), Schrift und Gedkhtnis. Beitrage zur Archaologie der literarischen Kommunikation [Writing and memory. Contributions to the archaeology of literary communication], 24-43. Miinchen: Fink. Ehlich, K. and J. Rehbein, 1977. Wissen, kommunikatives Handeln und die Schule [Knowledge, communicative actions and the school]. In: H.C. Goeppert (ed.), Sprachverhalten im Unterricht [Language relationships in education], 36-114. Miinchen: Fink. Ehlich, K. and J. Rehbein, 1986a. Muster und Institutionen. Untersuchungen zur schulischen
W. uan Peer / Paraphrase as paradox
459
Kommunikation [Action patterns and institutions. Research into classroom communication]. Tubingen: Narr. Ehlich, K. and J. Rehbein, 1986b. Vom Problemlosen zum Aufgabenstellen. Wie ein Handlungsmuster schultauglich wird. [From problem solving to task assignment. How an action pattern becomes adapted to the school]. In: K. Ehlich and J. Rehbein 1986a, 8-29. Fairley, I., 1991. The reader’s need for convention. In: W. van Peer ted.), The taming of the text. Explorations in language, literature and culture, 292-316. London and New York: Routledge. Leech, G.N., 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, S., 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mehan, H., 1979. Learning lessons. Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nash, W., 1986. The possibilities of paraphrase in the teaching of literary idiom. In: C.J. Brumfit and R.A. Carter teds.), 1986, 70-88. Parret, H., 1989. Paraphrase as a coherence principle in conversation. In: M.-E. Conte, J.S. Petofi and E. Siizer (eds.), Text and discourse connectedness, 281-289. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Peer, W. van, 1986. Stylistics and psychology: Investigations of foregrounding. London: Croom Helm. Peer, W. van, 1989. Oral reading practice: An institutional constraint on the development of functional literacy. In: E. Zuanelli (ed.), Literacy in school and society. Multidisciplinary perspectives, 221-233. New York: Plenum Books. Peer, W. van, 1990. The measurement of metre: Its cognitive and affective functions. Poetics 19, 259-275 Purves, A.C. and R. Beach, 1972. Literature and the reader: Research in response to literature, reading interests, and the teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Redder, A., 1983. Kommunikation in der Schule - zum Forschungsstand seit Mitte der siebziger Jahre [Classroom communication: A state of the art since the mid-seventies]. OBST (Osnabriicker Beitrage zur Sprachtheorie) 24, 118-144. Regan, J., 1983. Weltweite Entwicklungen der Analyse von Diskursen im Klassenzimmer [Worldwide developments in the analysis of classroom discourse]. In: K. Ehlich and J. Rehbein teds.), 1983, 261-274. Rehbein, J., 1977. Komplexes Handeln [Complex actions]. Stuttgart: Metzler. Searle, J., 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Short, M.H. (ed.), 1989. Reading, analysing and teaching literature. London: Longman. Sinclair, J. and M. Co&hard, 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wieler, P., 1989. Sprachliches Handeln im Literaturunterricht als didaktisches Problem [Discourse in literature classes as a didactic problem]. Bern: Peter Lang. Wimsatt, W.K. and M.C. Beardsley, 1954. The intentional fallacy. In: The verbal icon. Studies in the meaning of poetry. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press.