Important questions M.A.

Final (III Semester)

Paper I Major Development in Language Acquisition and Language Learning

1. Chomsky believed that language is innate, or in other words, we are born with a
capacity for language. Language rules are influenced by experience and learning,
but the capacity for language itself exists with or without environmental influences.
On Chomsky's view, the language faculty contains innate knowledge of various linguistic
rules, constraints and principles; this innate knowledge constitutes the ‘initial state’ of
the language faculty.

2..Cognitivism: Cognitivism focuses on the mind, and more specifically, mental

proceses such as thinking, knowing, memory, and problem-solving, with the goal of
opening the “black box” of the human mind, the process of which is deemed valuable
and necessary for learning to occur.

3 : Acquisition involves the subconscious acceptance of knowledge where

information is stored in the brain through the use of communication. Acquisition
learning refers to the process used for developing native languages and often
learned through absorption in one's early years home environment.

4.Social Context Model: the specific circumstance or general environment that

serves as a social framework for individual or interpersonal behavior. This context
frequently influences, at least to some degree, the actions and feelings that occur
within it.

5.Effective Strategies: The most effective language learning strategies

1. Have a definite goal in mind. ...

2. Immerse yourself in the experience. ...
3. Listen on a regular basis. ...
4. Use spaced repetition to improve your vocabulary skills. ...
5. Think in the language you're learning. ...
6. Make lots of mistakes. ...
7. Read as much as you can in your foreign language.

6. Social–psychological theories have long accorded cognitive processes a central

role. However, as cognitive processes are not directly observable and cannot be
easily measured, social–psychological research has traditionally inferred the
existence of cognitive processes based on overt behavioral data.

7.The Acculturation Model. An acculturation model posits that EBLs' assimilation to

the target culture is a success indicator in their English language acquisition even
though they have to give up their own "lifestyles and values, and adopt those of the
target language group". Within Berry's model, these two dimensions intersect to
create four acculturation categories—assimilation (adopts the receiving culture and
discards the heritage culture), separation (rejects the receiving culture and retains
the heritage culture), integration (adopts the receiving culture and retains the
heritage.

8.Human Brain and its Functions:

What is the brain?

Your brain is an essential organ. All of your emotions, sensations, aspirations and
everything that makes you uniquely individual come from your brain. This complex
organ has many functions. It receives, processes and interprets information. Your
brain also stores memories and controls your movements.

Your brain is one component of your central nervous system (CNS). It connects to
your spinal cord, the other part of your CNS.

Function
What is the brain’s function?

Your brain receives information from your five senses: sight, smell, sound, touch and
taste. Your brain also receives inputs including touch, vibration, pain and
temperature from the rest of your body as well as autonomic (involuntary) inputs
from your organs. It interprets this information so you can understand and associate
meaning with what goes on around you.

Your brain enables:

 Thoughts and decisions.

 Memories and emotions.
 Movements (motor function), balance and coordination.
 Perception of various sensations including pain.
 Automatic behavior such as breathing, heart rate, sleep and temperature
control.
 Regulation of organ function.
 Speech and language functions.
 Fight or flight response (stress response).

What is the gray and white matter in the brain?

Substances called gray and white matter make up your central nervous system. In
your brain, gray matter is the outermost layer. It plays a significant part in your day-
to-day function.
White matter is your deeper brain tissue. It contains nerve fibers that help your brain
send electric nerve signals more quickly and efficiently.

Which nerves send signals to and from your brain?

Your brain contains several types of nerves. Nerves carry messages by sending
electrical impulses back and forth between your brain, organs and muscles. The
nerves in your brain are called cranial nerves.You have 12 pairs of cranial nerves
from the brain to parts of your head and face. These nerves are responsible for
specific sensations, such as hearing, taste or sight. White matter is the fiber bundles
that connect brain cells. There are numerous white matter tracts that connect one
area of your brain to another, as well as structures deep in your brain. These white
matter tracts can also travel to your brainstem and spinal cord so that information
can be relayed from your brain to communicate with the rest of your body and
information from your body can travel to your brain.

What other parts of the brain send and receive signals?

Although most brain cells reside on the surface of your brain (called gray matter) and
the cabling (white matter) is deep and connects various parts of your brain, there are
some nuclei (collection of brain cells) that reside deep in your brain. They include:

 Thalamus: Your thalamus is a structure residing deep in your cerebrum and

above your brainstem. This structure is sometimes referred to as the
switchboard of the central nervous system. It relays various sensory
information, like sight, sound or touch, to your cerebral cortex from the rest of
your body.
 Hypothalamus: Your hypothalamus sits below your thalamus. It's important
in regulating various hormonal functions, autonomic function, hunger, thirst
and sleep. Your hypothalamus and pituitary gland are important structures
involved in the control of your hormonal system.
 Pituitary gland: Your pituitary gland sends out hormones to different organs
in your body.
 Basal ganglia: Your basal ganglia are a group of nuclei deep in your
cerebrum that is important in the control of your movement, including motor
learning and planning.
 Brainstem nuclei: There are a number of nuclei situated in your brainstem
involved in a variety of different functions including cells that give rise to a
number of important cranial nerves, normal sleep function, autonomic
functions (breathing and heart rate) and pain.
 Reticular formation: Your reticular formation is a part of your brainstem and
thalamic nuclei. These are a part of your reticular activating system (nuclei
plus the white matter connecting these nuclei), which lies in your brainstem,
hypothalamus and thalamus. The reticular activating system (RAS) mediates
your level of awareness, consciousness and focus. They also help control
your sleep-wake transitions and autonomic function.

How many brain cells does a human have?

For many years, scientists thought the human brain had 100 billion nerve cells
(neurons). Today, we know the actual number is closer to 86 billion.

Your brain contains two types of cells:

 Neurons send and receive electric nerve signals.

 Glial cells help maintain your brain, form myelin (a fatty, protective substance
found in white matter) and provide nutrition to your brain.

How does your brain relate to hormone production?

Within your thalamus sits a small structure called your hypothalamus. Your
hypothalamus is part of your limbic system, which controls your emotions. It sends
nerve signals to your pituitary gland. It helps control functions such as:

 Appetite.
 Body temperature.
 Emotions.
 Hormone production.
 Sleep and wake cycles.

In your brain, you also have a pineal gland, which secretes the hormone melatonin.
Melatonin controls how melanin gives your skin pigment. Melatonin also plays a role
in regulating your sleep and wake cycles.

9.Behaviourism and its implications for ELT

Behaviorism in education, or behavioral learning theory is a branch of psychology

that focuses on how people learn through their interactions with the environment. It is
based on the idea that all behaviors are acquired through conditioning, which is a
process of reinforcement and punishment. John B Watson who is also regarded as
the father of Behavioural Approach, described Behaviourism in his paper
“Psychology as the Behaviourist Views It”, which was published in 1913.
Implementing a behavioral learning model in education offers several
advantages. Firstly, it provides a systematic and structured approach to
teaching, enabling educators to set clear expectations and establish
consistent routines in the classroom. The use of positive reinforcement
encourages desirable behaviors, fostering a positive learning environment.
Additionally, behaviorism emphasizes measurable outcomes, allowing
educators to assess student progress and tailor instruction accordingly. By
focusing on observable behaviors, behaviorism provides a practical
framework for effective teaching and learning.

Working with a behavioral learning model can have several benefits for
educators and students alike. Some of these benefits are:
  It provides a clear and objective way of measuring and evaluating
student performance and progress.
 It allows teachers to tailor instruction and feedback according to each
student’s needs and abilities.
 It helps teachers manage classroom behavior and discipline by using
positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement strategies.
 It motivates students to learn by rewarding them for their
achievements and efforts.
 It helps students develop self-regulation skills by teaching them how
to monitor and control their own behavior.

here are many ways that teachers can apply behaviorism in the classroom
to enhance student learning and behavior. Here are some examples of
behaviorist teaching strategies:

Positive Reinforcement

Positive reinforcement entails offering rewards or incentives to strengthen

desired behaviors. This can include verbal praise, stickers, tokens, or other
tangible rewards. By positively reinforcing desired behaviors, educators can
motivate students and increase the likelihood of those behaviors being
repeated. For example, a teacher can praise a student for completing their
homework, give them a sticker for raising their hand, or reward them with
extra recess time for being cooperative.

Positive reinforcement can have several benefits, such as:

 It encourages students to repeat desirable behaviors and achieve

their goals.
 It boosts students’ self-esteem and confidence.
 It fosters a positive and nurturing learning atmosphere.


10.Models Of Second Language Learning:

There are four major theories about language acquisition: Behaviorism, Nativism,
Constructivism and Social interactionism. The first theory is based on the concept of
 stimulus- response behaviour and the theories of nativism and constructivism are based on
the way cognition supports language development.

Second language acquisition, or sequential language acquisition, is learning a

second language after a first language is already established. Many times this
happens when a child who speaks a language other than English goes to
school for the first time. Children have an easier time learning a second
language, but anyone can do it at any age. It takes a lot of practice!

There are many different things that factor into the decision about how to
teach a person a second language, including the following:

 language spoken in the home

 amount of opportunity to practice the second language
 internal motivation of the learner
 reason that the second language is needed (e.g., to learn at school, to talk to
a friend, or for work)
There are different ways that to introduce the second language:

 by setting (e.g., English is spoken only in the school, and Urdu is spoken only
in the home)
 by topic (e.g., French is spoken only during meal time, and Spanish is spoken
during school/work activities)
 by speaker (e.g., Mom will speak only in German, and Dad speaks Russian
only)
The ability of a person to use a second language will depend on his or her
family’s ability to speak more than one language. It is important for
parents/caregivers to provide a strong language model. If you cannot use the
language well, you should not be teaching it.

11. Krashen's hypotheses about secod language acquisition:

The 5 hypotheses of Krashen's Theory of Second Language Acquisition

Krashen's theory of second language acquisition consists of five main hypotheses:

 the Acquisition-Learning hypothesis;

 the Monitor hypothesis;
 the Input hypothesis;
 and the Affective Filter hypothesis;
  the Natural Order hypothesis.

The Acquisition-Learning distinction is the most fundamental of the five

hypotheses in Krashen's theory and the most widely known among linguists and
language teachers. According to Krashen there are two independent systems of
foreign language performance: 'the acquired system' and 'the learned system'. The
'acquired system' or 'acquisition' is the product of a subconscious process very
similar to the process children undergo when they acquire their first language. It
requires meaningful interaction in the target language - natural communication - in
which speakers are concentrated not in the form of their utterances, but in the
communicative act.

The "learned system" or "learning" is the product of formal instruction and it

comprises a conscious process which results in conscious knowledge 'about' the
language, for example knowledge of grammar rules. A deductive approach in a
teacher-centered setting produces "learning", while an inductive approach in a
student-centered setting leads to "acquisition".

According to Krashen 'learning' is less important than 'acquisition'. (See here our in-
depth analysis of the Acquisition/Learning hypothesis and its implications).

The Monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and learning
and defines the influence of the latter on the former. The monitoring function is the
practical result of the learned grammar. According to Krashen, the acquisition
system is the utterance initiator, while the learning system performs the role of the
'monitor' or the 'editor'. The 'monitor' acts in a planning, editing and correcting
function when three specific conditions are met:

 The second language learner has sufficient time at their disposal.

 They focus on form or think about correctness.
 They know the rule.
It appears that the role of conscious learning is somewhat limited in second
language performance. According to Krashen, the role of the monitor is minor, being
used only to correct deviations from "normal" speech and to give speech a more
'polished' appearance.

Krashen also suggests that there is individual variation among language learners
with regard to 'monitor' use. He distinguishes those learners that use the 'monitor' all
the time (over-users); those learners who have not learned or who prefer not to use
their conscious knowledge (under-users); and those learners that use the 'monitor'
appropriately (optimal users). An evaluation of the person's psychological profile can
help to determine to what group they belong. Usually extroverts are under-users,
while introverts and perfectionists are over-users. Lack of self-confidence is
frequently related to the over-use of the "monitor".
The Input hypothesis is Krashen's attempt to explain how the learner acquires a
second language – how second language acquisition takes place. The Input
hypothesis is only concerned with 'acquisition', not 'learning'. According to this
hypothesis, the learner improves and progresses along the 'natural order' when
he/she receives second language 'input' that is one step beyond his/her current
stage of linguistic competence. For example, if a learner is at a stage 'i', then
acquisition takes place when he/she is exposed to 'Comprehensible Input' that
belongs to level 'i + 1'. Since not all of the learners can be at the same level of
linguistic competence at the same time, Krashen suggests that natural
communicative input is the key to designing a syllabus, ensuring in this way that
each learner will receive some 'i + 1' input that is appropriate for his/her current stage
of linguistic competence.

See here an enlightening video by Krashen about comprehensible input.

The Affective Filter hypothesis embodies Krashen's view that a number of 'affective
variables' play a facilitative, but non-causal, role in second language acquisition.
These variables include: motivation, self-confidence, anxiety and personality traits.
Krashen claims that learners with high motivation, self-confidence, a good self-
image, a low level of anxiety and extroversion are better equipped for success in
second language acquisition. Low motivation, low self-esteem, anxiety, introversion
and inhibition can raise the affective filter and form a 'mental block' that prevents
comprehensible input from being used for acquisition. In other words, when the filter
is 'up' it impedes language acquisition. On the other hand, positive affect is
necessary, but not sufficient on its own, for acquisition to take place.

Finally, the less important Natural Order hypothesis is based on research findings
(Dulay & Burt, 1974; Fathman, 1975; Makino, 1980 cited in Krashen, 1987) which
suggested that the acquisition of grammatical structures follows a 'natural order'
which is predictable. For a given language, some grammatical structures tend to be
acquired early while others late. This order seemed to be independent of the
learners' age, L1 background, conditions of exposure, and although the agreement
between individual acquirers was not always 100% in the studies, there were
statistically significant similarities that reinforced the existence of a Natural Order of
language acquisition. Krashen however points out that the implication of the natural
order hypothesis is not that a language program syllabus should be based on the
order found in the studies. In fact, he rejects grammatical sequencing when the goal
is language acquisition.

The Role of Grammar in Krashen's View

According to Krashen, the study of the structure of the language can have general
educational advantages and values that high schools and colleges may want to
include in their language programs. Any benefit, however, will greatly depend on the
learner being already familiar with the language. It should also be clear that analizing
the language, formulating rules, setting irregularities apart, and teaching complex
facts about the target language is not language teaching, but rather is "language
appreciation" or linguistics, which does not lead to communicative proficiency.

The only instance in which the teaching of grammar can result in language
acquisition (and proficiency) is when the students are interested in the subject
and the target language is used as a medium of instruction. Very often, when this
occurs, both teachers and students are convinced that the study of formal grammar
is essential for second language acquisition, and the teacher is skillful enough to
present explanations in the target language so that the students understand. In other
words, the teacher talk meets the requirements for comprehensible input and
perhaps, with the students' participation, the classroom becomes an environment
suitable for acquisition. Also, the filter is low in regard to the language of explanation,
as the students' conscious efforts are usually on the subject matter, on what is being
talked about, and not the medium.

12.Dell Hyme's Communicative Competence:

The work of Dell Hymes has been highly influential in language education
and the field of linguistics more generally. Questions about the
appropriateness of engaging with his work have been raised following
allegations of sexual harassment during his tenure at the University of
Pennsylvania. However, the radical nature of his work and its role in
demonstrating that language was co-constitutive of the social, historical,
and political contexts of its speakers requires engagement, particularly
given the challenges facing language education in the early 21st century.

Hymes’ identification of the communicative event as fundamental to an

understanding of language has been instrumental in the development of
an influential collection of approaches now collectively referred to as
communicative language teaching (CLT). Hymes’ sociologically informed
concept of communicative competence, developed in reaction to
Chomsky’s notions of linguistic competence and performance, has also
been highly influential in language education research and practice.
Subsequently, concerns have been raised about the recontextualization of
Hymes’ work and the disconnect between idealized notions of
communicative competence as they appear in contexts of language
education and the actual language use in speech communities.

From a conceptual standpoint, re-engagement with Hymes’ work is

needed to reorient CLT and corresponding notions of communicative
competence to their sociological bases. Hymes understood the speech
community as the context par excellence for describing language, and
therefore it should also inform the orientation of language education to
communication. This can be achieved by allowing ethnographic work to
play a larger role in contexts of language education. Advances in digital
communications technology offer many such opportunities, removing
proximal requirements for observing and interacting with target speech
communities and providing access to digital artifacts produced by the
community.

As language education faces challenges driven by rapidly changing

political, sociological, and technological circumstances, Hymes’ insights
about the inherent inequality of language and its relationship with the
political and social dimensions of speech communities remain highly
relevant. Re-engaging with a Hymesian understanding of communicative
competence means recognizing the contextually dependent bases for
judgments about language and the variation that exists between
individuals even within the same speech community. Hymes saw that the
path to a more aware, more just society ran through this understanding of
communicative competence, and so language education must look to this
understanding if it seeks to transform the role that language plays in our
social and political lives.

13. Connectionism (Edward Thorndike)

The learning theory of Thorndike represents the original S-R framework of

behavioral psychology: Learning is the result of associations forming between
stimuli and responses. Such associations or “habits” become strengthened or
weakened by the nature and frequency of the S-R pairings. The paradigm for
S-R theory was trial and error learning in which certain responses come to
dominate others due to rewards. The hallmark of connectionism (like all
behavioral theory) was that learning could be adequately explained without
refering to any unobservable internal states.

Thorndike’s theory consists of three primary laws: (1) law of effect –

responses to a situation which are followed by a rewarding state of affairs will
be strengthened and become habitual responses to that situation, (2) law of
readiness – a series of responses can be chained together to satisfy some
goal which will result in annoyance if blocked, and (3) law of exercise –
connections become strengthened with practice and weakened when practice
is discontinued. A corollary of the law of effect was that responses that reduce
the likelihood of achieving a rewarding state (i.e., punishments, failures) will
decrease in strength.
The theory suggests that transfer of learning depends upon the presence of
identical elements in the original and new learning situations; i.e., transfer is
always specific, never general. In later versions of the theory, the concept of
“belongingness” was introduced; connections are more readily established if
the person perceives that stimuli or responses go together (c.f. Gestalt
principles). Another concept introduced was “polarity” which specifies that
connections occur more easily in the direction in which they were originally
formed than the opposite. Thorndike also introduced the “spread of effect”
idea, i.e., rewards affect not only the connection that produced them but
temporally adjacent connections as well.

Application
Connectionism was meant to be a general theory of learning for animals and
humans. Thorndike was especially interested in the application of his theory to
education including mathematics (Thorndike, 1922), spelling and reading
(Thorndike, 1921), measurement of intelligence (Thorndike et al., 1927) and
adult learning (Thorndike at al., 1928).

Example
The classic example of Thorndike’s S-R theory was a cat learning to escape
from a “puzzle box” by pressing a lever inside the box. After much trial and
error behavior, the cat learns to associate pressing the lever (S) with opening
the door (R). This S-R connection is established because it results in a
satisfying state of affairs (escape from the box). The law of exercise specifies
that the connection was established because the S-R pairing occurred many
times (the law of effect) and was rewarded (law of effect) as well as forming a
single sequence (law of readiness).

Principles
1. Learning requires both practice and rewards (laws of effect /exercise)
2. A series of S-R connections can be chained together if they belong to
the same action sequence (law of readiness).
3. Transfer of learning occurs because of previously encountered
situations.
4. Intelligence is a function of the number of connections learned.

14. Kolb's Learning Styles:

Overview of Kolb's Cycle of Learning

In his experiential theory, learning is viewed as a four-stage cycle. First,
immediate and concrete experiences serve as a basis for observation.
Next, the individual reflects on these observations and begins to build a
general theory of what this information might mean.

In the next step, the learner forms abstract concepts and generalizations
based on their hypothesis. Finally, the learner tests the implications of
these concepts in new situations. After this step, the process once again
cycles back to the first stage of the experiential process.

Theory of Kolb's Learning Cycle

The learning styles described by Kolb are based on two major dimensions:
active/reflective and abstract/concrete.1

The Converger
People with this learning style have dominant abilities in the areas of
Abstract Conceptualization and Active Experimentation. They are highly
skilled in the practical application of ideas. They tend to do best in
situations where there is a single best solution or answer to a problem.

The Diverger
Divergers dominant abilities lie in the areas of Concrete Experience and
Reflective Observation, essentially the opposite strengths of the
Converger. People with this learning style are good at seeing the "big
picture" and organizing smaller bits of information into a meaningful
whole.

Divergers tend to be emotional and creative and enjoy brainstorming to

come up with new ideas. Artists, musicians, counselors, and people with a
strong interest in the fine arts, humanities, and liberal arts tend to have
this learning style.
The Assimilator
Assimilators are skilled in the areas of Abstract Conceptualization and
Reflective Observation. Understanding and creating theoretical models is
one of their greatest strengths. They tend to be more interested in
abstract ideas than in people, but they are not greatly concerned with the
practical applications of theories.

Individuals who work in math and the basic sciences tend to have this
type of learning style. Assimilators also enjoy work that involves planning
and research.
The Accommodator
People with this learning style are strongest in Concrete Experience and
Active Experimentation. This style is basically the opposite of the
Assimilator style. Accommodators are doers; they enjoy performing
experiments and carrying out plans in the real world.

Out of all four learning styles, Accommodators tend to be the greatest

risk-takers. They are good at thinking on their feet and changing their
plans spontaneously in response to new information.

When solving problems, they typically use a trial-and-error approach.

People with this learning style often work in technical fields or in action-
oriented jobs such as sales and marketing.

15.Mind Mapping:

What is a mind map, and how can it help organize ideas in our
brains? A mind map is a highly effective tool used by creatives,
marketers, and project managers to inspire their teams. In
addition to sparking employees’ creative juices, mind maps
organize “timelines, dependencies, and responsibilities.”
Furthermore, mind maps can serve as the initial step in your
project planning process.

Although it may sound like a far-fetched business tool, chances

are you've used mind maps throughout your life. Whether it's a
so-called "spider diagram" at school or planning out an essay in
college, mind maps are very common. In fact,they even date back
to the philosophers of ancient Greece and Leonardo da Vinci
during the Renaissance.

While we all learn differently, many of us are much more attuned

to visual learning, and mind maps use this to help us retain
information more effectively. A 2002 study found that mind
mapping improved the long-term memory of factual information
in medical students by 10 percent, while another from the Mind
 Mapping Software Blog found that mind mapping can boost
productivity by up to 23 percent.

Read on to discover what a mind map is, why it’s important, and
how to use it to improve projects. Additionally, modern mind map
tools like Miro can be seamlessly integrated with collaborative
work management platforms like Wrike, ensuring a smooth
transition from idea generation to project execution.

What are the benefits of mind maps?

In project management, creative brainstorming is key to solving
problems, coming up with clear roadmaps, and generating unique
outcomes, all of which are easy to do with mind mapping.

Other mind map benefits for creative project

management include:

 Making meaningful connections between ideas

 Collaborating with teams virtually or when spread out across the
globe
 Giving every team member space to contribute and have their
voice heard
 Having a visual and easy-to-understand subject map
 Organizing a wide range of data, dependent projects, and related
tasks

16. Modern Research on LLS.Rebecca Oxford

Classification of LLS

Language learning strategies were first introduced to the second language literature
in 1975, with research on the good language learner. At the time it was thought that
a better understanding of strategies deployed by successful learners could help
inform teachers and students alike of how to teach and learn languages more
 effectively. Initial studies aimed to document the strategies of good language
learners. In the 80s the emphasis moved to classification of language learning
strategies. Strategies were first classified according to whether they were direct or
indirect, and later they were strategies divided into cognitive, metacognitive or
affective/social categories.

In 1990, Rebecca Oxford published her landmark book "Language Learning

Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know" which included the "Strategy
Inventory for Language Learning" or "SILL", a questionnaire [8] which was used in a
great deal of research in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Controversy over basic issues such as definition grew stronger in the late 1990s and
early 2000s, however, with some researchers giving up trying to define the concept
in favour of listing essential characteristics. Others abandoned the strategy term in
favour of "self regulation".

Oxford (1990) also classified llS; she divided these strategies into two main classes
direct and indirect strategies which are further subdivided into 6 groups. Direct
strategies include memorization, cognitive, and compensation strategies and indirect
strategies include metacognitive, affective and social strategies.

The Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (Oxford, 1990) was used to evaluate
specific language learning tasks within the learning context. By simultaneously
administering the SILL with the ICAN, the validity of the ICAN could be compared
against the established norms of SILL.

17.Willing's Learning Styles

The Willing model and the Dunn and Dunn model both provide insights into learning
styles and how they can affect the learning process.

Willing Model
The Willing model categorizes learners into four styles:
 Imaginative learners: These learners prefer to learn through creative activities,
such as storytelling, drama, and art.
 Analytical learners: They thrive on logic and reasoning, preferring structured and
organized learning environments.
 Commonsense learners: These individuals learn best through practical, hands-on
experiences and real-life applications.
 Dynamic learners: Dynamic learners are energetic and enjoy learning through
movement, physical activities, and experimentation.
Dunn and Dunn Model
The Dunn and Dunn model identifies five elements that can affect learning:
 Environmental: This includes elements such as sound, light, temperature, and
design of the learning space.
 Emotional: Emotional elements encompass motivation, persistence, responsibility,
and the need for structure or independence.
 Sociological: This element considers the influence of peers, adults, and the overall
social environment on learning.
 Physiological: Physiological elements include sensory preferences, such as visual,
auditory, or tactile learning.
 Psychological: This element involves identifying a learner's perceptual strengths,
such as global or analytic processing, and their intake and time-of-day preferences.
Impact on Learning
Understanding these learning styles can help educators tailor their teaching methods
to accommodate the diverse needs of students. By recognizing and addressing
individual learning styles, educators can create a more inclusive and effective
learning environment, ultimately enhancing the learning experience for all students.

18. Gardener's Multiple Intelligence

Many of us are familiar with three broad categories in which people learn: visual
learning, auditory learning, and kinesthetic learning. Beyond these three categories,
many theories of and approaches toward human learning potential have been
established. Among them is the theory of multiple intelligences developed by Howard
Gardner, Ph.D., John H. and Elisabeth A. Hobbs Research Professor of Cognition
and Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education at Harvard University.
Gardner’s early work in psychology and later in human cognition and human
potential led to his development of the initial six intelligences. Today there are nine
intelligences, and the possibility of others may eventually expand the list.

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences Summarized

1. Verbal-linguistic intelligence (well-developed verbal skills and sensitivity to the

sounds, meanings and rhythms of words)
2. Logical-mathematical intelligence (ability to think conceptually and abstractly,
and capacity to discern logical and numerical patterns)
3. Spatial-visual intelligence (capacity to think in images and pictures, to visualize
accurately and abstractly)
4. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (ability to control one’s body movements and to
handle objects skillfully)
5. Musical intelligences (ability to produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch and
timber)
6. Interpersonal intelligence (capacity to detect and respond appropriately to the
moods, motivations and desires of others)
7. Intrapersonal (capacity to be self-aware and in tune with inner feelings, values,
beliefs and thinking processes)
8. Naturalist intelligence (ability to recognize and categorize plants, animals and
other objects in nature)
 9. Existential intelligence (sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about
human existence such as, “What is the meaning of life? Why do we die? How
did we get here?”

(“Tapping into Multiple Intelligences,” 2004)

Gardner (2013) asserts that regardless of which subject you teach—“the arts, the
sciences, history, or math”—you should present learning materials in multiple ways.
Gardner goes on to point out that anything you are deeply familiar with “you can
describe and convey … in several ways. We teachers discover that sometimes our
own mastery of a topic is tenuous, when a student asks us to convey the knowledge
in another way and we are stumped.” Thus, conveying information in multiple ways
not only helps students learn the material, it also helps educators increase and
reinforce our mastery of the content.

… regardless of which subject you teach—“the arts, the sciences, history, or

math”—you should present learning materials in multiple ways.
Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory can be used for curriculum development,
planning instruction, selection of course activities, and related assessment
strategies. Gardner points out that everyone has strengths and weaknesses in
various intelligences, which is why educators should decide how best to present
course material given the subject-matter and individual class of students. Indeed,
instruction designed to help students learn material in multiple ways can trigger their
confidence to develop areas in which they are not as strong. In the end, students’
learning is enhanced when instruction includes a range of meaningful and
appropriate methods, activities, and assessments.

Multiple Intelligences are Not Learning Styles

While Gardner’s MI have been conflated with “learning styles,” Gardner himself
denies that they are one in the same. The problem Gardner has expressed with the
idea of “learning styles” is that the concept is ill defined and there “is not persuasive
evidence that the learning style analysis produces more effective outcomes than a
‘one size fits all approach’” (as cited in Strauss, 2013). As former Assistant Director
of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Teaching Nancy Chick (n.d.) pointed out,
“Despite the popularity of learning styles and inventories such as the VARK, it’s
important to know that there is no evidence to support the idea that matching
activities to one’s learning style improves learning.” One tip Gardner offers educators
is to “pluralize your teaching,” in other words to teach in multiple ways to help
students learn, to “convey what it means to understand something well,” and to
demonstrate your own understanding. He also recommends we “drop the term
‘styles.’ It will confuse others and it won’t help either you or your students” (as cited
in Strauss, 2013).
… “pluralize your teaching,” in other words to teach in multiple ways to help
students learn, to “convey what it means to understand something well,” and
to demonstrate your own understanding.
Summary
Gardner himself asserts that educators should not follow one specific theory or
educational innovation when designing instruction but instead employ customized
goals and values appropriate to teaching, subject-matter, and student learning
needs. Addressing the multiple intelligences can help instructors pluralize their
instruction and methods of assessment and enrich student learning.

19. Learner Autonomy

Learner autonomy is a learner’s ability to be self-motivated and responsible for their

own learning.

Let’s say you go to the gym. A group class is great because you have an instructor
to motivate you. But, the downside is that the class isn’t tailored to your goals, fitness
level, body type, and schedule. So, you’d probably see better results if you did your
own personalized workout. It’s the same with learning.

Unlike traditional teaching, learner autonomy gives learners opportunities to make

their own decisions.

Learners have access to all the training resources and the freedom to develop their
own learning strategies.

So what does autonomous learning look like in real life? Self-access language
learning centers are a great example.

These centers offer students all the necessary training resources, such as
dictionaries, photocopies of exercise books, evaluation questionnaires, etc.

Self-access centers can provide a fully or partially self-directed learning experience

where students either study full-time on their own or combine individual learning
activities with classroom practice.
The term “learner autonomy” originally came from foreign language learning.
However, it has quickly worked its way through the education sector, including e-
learning.

Learner autonomy is a staple in the e-learning world. L&D teams can provide
employees with self-paced online courses or other training materials safe in the
knowledge that they have the skills to take charge of their own learning. And
employees can access training via an LMS and learn at their own pace.

It’s important to note that learning autonomy is rarely innate. So, it’s generally the
instructor’s (or L&D team’s) responsibility to promote learner autonomy techniques
and teach learners how to study on their own.

In short, not all students are natural autonomous learners. In most cases, educators
or training teams must help them develop metacognitive awareness and discover
learning strategies that work for them.
Once learners have the right learning methods, they can:

 Create their own learning process

 Conduct self-assessments

 Efficiently use learning resources

 Identify learning opportunities

To achieve this level of discipline, analytical thinking, and self-awareness,

teachers should teach and promote learner autonomy as early as possible
throughout the school years.

But why is it important for learners to be autonomous? Let’s have a look

at the benefits.

Four learner autonomy benefits you need to know

Independent learners are more accountable. As a result, they’re more

likely to take the initiative and plug their own skills gaps (rather than wait
for training to be spoonfed to them). This reduces the learning curve and
leads to higher-performing employees.

And these are not the only benefits of leveraging learner autonomy in a
business setting.

20. Stages of language development in a child

1. Pre-linguistic stage
Also known as the pre-linguistic stage, the first stage of language development often
occurs between zero and six months. Children in this phase don't have developed
language skills, so they communicate with sounds. They cry, make cooing sounds
and utter nasal murmurs as their vocal tracts develop. Infants can also recognize
voices and sounds in addition to facial expressions and voice tones.

2. Babbling stage
The second stage of a child's language development happens between the ages of 6
and 9 months. Children begin to babble, making noises and syllables that aren’t yet
words. Mouth muscles and teeth grow to prepare children for more advanced talking.

3. Holophrastic stage
The third phase of language development, also known as the holophrastic stage,
usually happens between the ages of 9 and 18 months. During this time, their
language skills usually have increased enough for them to say single words that
describe objects or identify their basic needs. For instance, a child in this stage might
say "dada" as a way of getting their dad's attention.

4. Two-word stage
During this stage, the child can speak two-word sentences that usually have some
meaning. They group words together that they learned during the holophrastic stage.
Some examples may include:

 Saying "more food" at the table

 Saying "doggy small" to describe a dog
 Saying "thank mom!" to show appreciation

5. Telegraphic stage
The telegraphic stage occurs between the ages of 24 and 30 months. Children can
speak phrases that are not only longer but also have more than two elements. For
instance, a child might say “The cat stand up on the table.” Correct grammar still isn’t
prevalent in this stage, but the sentence conveys that the cat is standing up in
addition to being on the table. The child also develops the ability to understand basic
instructions, including two-part orders like "go to your table and get your books
6. Multi-word stage
Beyond 30 months, children enter the multi-word stage. They build increasingly
complex sentences that allow them to better communicate their ideas. They also
start to incorporate morphemes to make more semantically sound phrases. For
instance, they know to use the word “dogs” instead of “dog” when referring to more
than one dog. The telegraphic stage occurs between the ages of 24 and 30 months.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
Sem III .M.A. Final
Paper IV Twentieth Century Literary Criticism and
Theory
1. New Criticism: New Criticism is a way of analyzing literature based on the
text alone. It takes a close reading of a work and analyzes the content, such as by
looking at themes, structures like iambic pentameter, and literary devices. This
theory arose in America and Great Britain in the first half of the 20th century.

2.New Historicism: New Criticism is a way of analyzing literature based on the text
alone. It takes a close reading of a work and analyzes the content, such as by looking at
themes, structures like iambic pentameter, and literary devices. This theory arose in America
and Great Britain in the first half of the 20th century.

Historicism is an approach to explaining the existence of phenomena, especially

social and cultural practices (including ideas and beliefs), by studying their history;
that is, by studying the process by which they came about.

3.Strcturalism:
Structuralism is a method of interpreting and analyzing such things as language,
literature, and society, which focuses on contrasting ideas or elements of structure
and attempts to show how they relate to the whole structure.
Structuralism is general theory of culture and methodology that implies that elements of
human culture must be understood by the way of their relationship to a broader system. It
uncovers the framework upon which a society is established, which includes all the things
that humans do, think, perceive, and feel.

4.Reader response theory: General Overview. Reader response theory identifies

the significant role of the reader in constructing textual meaning. In acknowledging the
reader's essential role, reader response diverges from early text-based views found in New
Criticism, or brain-based psychological perspectives related to reading. Reader-response
strategies can be categorized, according to Richard Beach in A Teacher's Introduction to
Reader-Response Theories (1993), into five types: textual, experiential, psychological,
social, and cultural.

5.Archetypes
Archetype comes from the Greek verb archein ("to begin"
or "to rule") and the noun typos ("type"). Archetype has
specific uses in the fields of philosophy and psychology.
The ancient Greek philosopher Plato, for example, believed
that all things have ideal forms (aka archetypes) of which
real things are merely shadows or copies. And in the
psychology of C. G. Jung, archetype refers to an inherited
idea or mode of thought that is present in the unconscious
of the individual. In everyday prose, however, archetype is
most commonly used to mean "a perfect example of
something."
6.paradox
A paradox is a figure of speech that seems to contradict itself, but which,
upon further examination, contains some kernel of truth or reason. Oscar
Wilde's famous declaration that "Life is much too important to be taken
seriously" is a paradox. At first it seems contradictory because important
things are meant to be taken seriously, but Wilde's paradoxical
suggestion is that, the more important something is, the more important it
is not to take it seriously.
7.Elements of the novel
These elements are character, plot, setting, theme, point of view, conflict, and tone.
All seven elements work together to create a coherent story. When you're writing a
story, these are the fundamental building blocks you should use. You can approach
the seven elements in any order.
8.Death of the author
The Death of the Author is a literary theory that argues that the meaning of a text is
not determined by the author's intention, but rather by the reader's interpretation.
This theory was first introduced by French philosopher Roland Barthes in his essay
“The Death of the Author” in 1967.

9. Cleanth Brook: The Language Of Paradox:

The “Language of Paradox” is one of the well-known essays, written by a great

American critic ‘Cleanth Brooks’. This is the first chapter of Cleanth Brooks’s Book
‘Well-Wrought Urn’. Through this essay, Brooks has shown how the poet conveys
his thoughts and ideas by using literary devices like Paradox without employing a
direct statement in poetry. According to Cleanth Brooks, Paradox covers all shocking
deviations and digressions from common opinions and perceptions. It is not merely a
literary device.

Cleanth Brooks, one of the foremost American Literary critics of the 20 th century,
spent fifteen years as a professor in the English Department. He was a central
architect of the ‘New Criticism’ a critical movement that transformed the teaching of
literature in the United States. He profoundly influenced American literary studies
and shaped successive generations of students and teachers of literature with his
work. Brooks taught at ‘Yale University from 1947 to 1975. Brook’s works included –
‘Literary Criticism: A Short History’ (Cowritten with William K. Wimsatt), ‘A shaping
joy: Studies in the Writer’s Craft’, and several books on ‘William Faulkner’. Cleanth
Brooks was influenced by modern critics like, ‘T. S. Eliot’, ‘I. A. Richard’, and ‘William
Empson’.

Cleanth Brooks asserts that Paradox is the most appropriate and ideal device
for poetry in order to convey thoughts as well as emotion. Cleanth Brooks thinks that
language employed in science is refined and clear and is free from Paradoxical
statements same as Brooks’s opinions that Paradox is the fittest means in poetry.

“The paradox is the language appropriate and inevitable to poetry.”

Brooks has employed three diverse examples from English poetry. He has given an
example of William Wordsworth’s poems “It is a Beauteous evening calm and Free”
and “Composed upon West Minister Bridge” or John Donne’s famous poem “The
Canonization” in order to prove his point of view.

Paradoxes in Wordsworth’s Poetry

Brooks states that the language of William Wordsworth is the language of
Paradox. As a romantic poet, William Wordsworth emphasized simplicity of thought
and lucidity of expression in poetry. But Cleanth Brooks thinks that Wordsworth’s
poem. “It is a Beauteous Evening, calm and free” is pregnant with a Paradoxical
statement. The poem begins with the line:

“It is a beauteous evening, calm and free

The holy time is quiet as a Nun
Breathless with adoration.”

Here the poet has compared a beauteous evening to a nun but it actually has
more than one meaning. The poet is filled with a feeling of worship at that holy time
of evening but the girl who walks beside him is not in that frame of mind of worship.

According to Cleanth Brooks Wordsworth’s sonnet “lines composed upon

Westminster Bridge” has literary significance and beauty only because of the
Paradoxical situation. The poem holds richness, not due to the poet’s skillful
handling of images and nobility of emotion but because of the paradoxical situation.
Brooks finds in Wordsworth’s poem both ‘awe and wonder’ of English Romanticism.
According to Brooks, they are the fantastic Paradoxes employed by Wordsworth.

In his famous work “Preface to Lyrical Ballads”, Wordsworth expressed his

views that his primary goal was to choose incidents and situations from the life of
Rural, rustic, and common life.

Paradoxes in Neoclassical Poets:Neo classic writer like

Alexander Pope has also made fine use of Paradoxes along with irony. In his famous
work, “Essay on Man” Pope uses Paradoxes.

According to Cleanth Brooks Paradoxes and irony are cradled in the poet’s
language in which both connotation and denotation play a vital role. There is a fine
blending of irony and Paradoxes in some of William Wordsworth’s poems also the
works of William Blake and Thomas Gray are also no exception. Samuel Taylor,
Coleridge in his “The Rime of Ancient Mariner” has dexterously used this poetic
device.
 In the poem, “Canonization” the speaker addresses a silent listener who may
be deemed as a sign of the Practical world which considers love as a useless and
meaningless affair. The two lovers escape from the convention, rules, and bindings
of the secular world. The poet says:

“Or chide my Palsy or my gout,

My five grey hairs or ruined fortune flout.”

The lover in these lines tells the listener that he should not consider his love
disease immoral and asks him to confine himself to his other flaws, his palsy, and his
approaching old age. The secular friend should not find faults in his love affair
because no one is affected by a love affair.

Cleanth Brooks in the conclusion part of the essay states, “I submit that the
only way by which the poet could say what “The Canonization” says, is by Paradox”.

.Difference between the language of poetry and Science

Cleanth Brooks further differentiates between science and poetry. He thinks that it is
the tendency of science to make terms lifeless and direct with the help of
denotations. In poetry, the poet brings novelty to terms by deviating from the
denotative meaning of terms and their dictionary meaning.

Science makes use of direct expressions which are quite rigid whereas poets
hind the message and meaning of their work by employing poetical devices like
Paradoxes and irony, the language of poetry cannot be direct. Brooks states that the
directness of language is of no use in poetry.

10.NORTHROP FRYE: THE ARCHETYPES OF

LITERATURE

Introduction

Northrop Frye was born in Canada in 1921 and studied at Toronto University and
Merton College, Oxford University. Initially he was a student of theology and then he
switched over to literature. He published his first book, Fearful Symmetry: A Study of
William Blake in 1947. The book is a highly original study of the poetry of Blake and it is
considered a classic critical work. Northrop Frye rose to international prominence with the
publication of Anatomy of Criticism, in 1957 and it firmly established him as one of the most
brilliant, original and influential of modern critics. Frye died in 1991. On the whole, he wrote
about twenty books on Western literature, culture, myth, archetypal theory, religion and
social thought. The Fables of Identity: Studies in Poetic Mythology is a critical work
published in 1963. The present essay, “Archetypes of Literature,” is taken from the book. In
the essay Frye critically analyses literature against the backdrop of rituals and myths. He
interprets literature in the light of various rituals and myths. Frye has divided the easy into
three parts. The first part deals with the concept of archetypal criticism. The second part
throws light on the inductive method of analysis of a text. The third part focuses on the
deductive method of analysis. All the methods fall under structural criticism.

Part-I THE CONCEPT OF ARCHETYPAL CRITICISM

Literature can be interpreted in as many ways as possible, and there are different
approaches to literature, and one among them is the archetypal approach. The term
“archetype” means an original idea or pattern of something of which others are copies.
Archetypal approach is the interpretation of a text in the light of cultural patterns involved in
it, and these cultural patterns are based on the myths and rituals of a race or nation or social
group. Myths and rituals are explored in a text for discovery of meaning and message. In
recent times this type of critics. approach to a text has gained popularity. James George
Frazer and Carl Gustav Jung are the two great authorities who, have greatly contributed to the
development of archetypal approach. Frazer was a social anthropologist and his book The
Golden Bough makes a study of magic, religion and myths of different races. Jung was a
psychologist associated with Freud. The “collective consciousness” is a major theory of Jung.
According to Jung, civilized man “unconsciously” preserves the ideas, concepts and values of
life cherished by his distant forefathers, and such ideas are expressed in a society’s or race’s
myths and rituals. Creative writers have used myths in their works and critics analyze texts
for a discovery of “mythological patterns.” This kind of critical analysis of a text is called
archetypal criticism. T.S. Eliot has used mythical patterns in his creative works and The
Waste Land is a good example of it. Northrop Frye in his essay does not analyze any
particular myth in a work and in

fact, he presents an analysis of “mythical patterns” which have been used by writers in
general.

Two Types of Criticism and the Humanities

Like science, literary criticism is also a systematized and organized body of

knowledge. Science dissects and analyses nature and facts. Similarly literary criticism
analyses and interprets literature. Frye further says that literacy criticism and its theories and
techniques can be taught, but literature cannot be taught, rather it is to be felt and enjoyed.
Indeed, literary criticism is like science and it can be creative. There are two types of literary
criticism: a significant and meaningful criticism, and a meaningless criticism. A meaningless
criticism will not help a reader in developing a systematic structure of knowledge about a
work of literature. This kind of criticism will give only the background information about a
work. A meaningless criticism will distract the reader from literature. Literature is a part of
humanities and humanities include philosophy and history also. These two branches of
knowledge provide a kind of pattern for understanding literature. Philosophy and history are
two major tools- for interpretation of literature and archetypal criticism is based on
philosophy and history of a people. Archetypal criticism is meaningful criticism.

Formalistic Criticism & Historical Criticism

There are different types of criticism and most of them remain commentaries on texts.
There is a type of criticism, which focuses only on an analysis of a text. Such a criticism
confines itself to the text and does not give any other background information about the text.
This type of formalistic or structural criticism will help the readers in understanding a text
only to some extent. That is, a reader may understand the pattern of a text, but how the
pattern is evolved, he cannot understand without the background information, which may be
called historical criticism. Structural criticism will help a reader in understanding the pattern
of a text and historical criticism will make the reader’s understanding clearer. What the
readers require today is a synthesis of structural criticism and historical criticism. Archetypal
criticism is a synthesis of structural criticism and historical criticism.

Literary Criticism is a Science

Science explores nature and different branches of science explore different aspects of
nature. Physics is a branch of science, which explores matter and natural forces of the
universe. Physics and Astronomy gained their scientific significance and they were accepted
as branches of science during the Renaissance. Chemistry gained the status of science in the
eighteenth century, and so did Biology in the nineteenth century. Social Sciences assumed
their significance as part of science in the twentieth century. Similarly, literary criticism,
today, has become systematic in its analysis, and therefore it could be considered as
a science. Based on this concept, a work of literature may be critically (or scientifically)
evaluated, says Northrop Frye. Among the tools of criticism, he uses the two methods:
structural criticism and historical criticism. The two concepts, he explains in detail in the
second and third parts of this critical essay respectively.

11. Discourse in the Novel: Mikhail Bakhtin:

Mikhail Bakhtin’s seminal 1941 critical essay ―Discourse in the Novel‖ offers a
vigorous and in-depth and interpreting both novelistic style and the very
nature and structure of language. In this essay, Bakhtin draws from the field of
linguistics to conceptualize the novel as offering a wide variety of different
viewpoints and attitudes, more so than other literary arts—such as poetry and
theatre—are capable of. For Bakhtin, novels allow for the enactment of very
different forms of linguistic style and meaning than traditional works of poetry
—especially epic poetry—can. While a work of poetry, according to Bakhtin,
usually offers a single language and style throughout, novels are a
―phenomenon examination and reconsideration of the stylistic nature(s) and
purpose(s) of the novel. In his essay, Bakhtin calls for a radically different
method—different, at least in terms of the early structuralist and poetry-
focused methods of criticism being employed by most Western literary critics
at the time he was writing—of understanding multiform in style and variform
in speech and voice,‖ (261) hence novels can be understood as consisting of
―several heterogeneous stylistic unities, often located on different linguistic
levels and subject to different stylistic controls‖ (261). Novels, Bakhtin
contends, follow five basic linguistic or compositional styles: 1. Direct authorial
narration. 2. Everyday, common, narration. 3. Literary or written narrations
(such as diary entries and letters between characters). 4. ―Extra-artistic
authorial speech‖ (262), such as scientific or philosophical presentations. 5.
The individual speech of different characters. Taken together, Bakhtin argues,
these ―heterogeneous stylistic unities, upon entering the novel combine to
form a structured artistic system, and are subordinated to the higher stylistic
unity of the work as a whole‖ (262). The essence and uniqueness of the novel,
Bakhtin asserts, comes from the combination of different styles, voices,
viewpoints and philosophies that the novel is capable of presenting. The
novelist, he insists, welcomes and embraces the various languages and
discursive styles the form demands, which allows the novelist to provide
countless levels of linguistic meaning and possibility, thanks to the countless
social and historical voices that populate any given language. The very diversity
of voices and perspectives that can exist within novels, then, is the defining
element of novels, for, according to Bakhtin, the essence of a novel comes
from the conflict between different voices—and, hence, points of view and
perspectives—that can be presented within such. Bakhtin sees the critical
approaches of his time as being focused on exploring and interpreting works of
poetry—which he views as being singular in language and style— and thus in
need of very different critical terms for conceptualizing the novel. He asserts
that the novel is a uniquely rhetorical and discursive form of literature, and
must be conceptualized as a work of rhetoric; hence the principles of rhetoric
and linguistics should be applied to novels in order to properly critique and
understand them. In many respects, this essay also offers Bakhtin’s most direct
and fully realized statement of his linguistic philosophy. Here, he introduces
the term ―heteroglossia,‖ which he defines as the conflicting discourses
within languages, which are, nonetheless, common across all forms of
language, such as slang, regionalisms, and other language variations that occur
within a particular language. This notion prefigures—and, to some measure,
influenced—later post-structural notions of the structural differences that exist
within a language.
12.The Unities of Discourse:Michel Foucault:
Foucault begins by outlining recent trends in two branches of historical method.
Firstly, historians have come to address the "great, silent, motionless bases" that lie
beneath the political successions, wars, and famines with which traditional historical
practice has been concerned. Examples include studies like "the history of sea-
routes, the history of corn or of gold-mining," which seek to address the deeper,
underlying processes of history. This trend has led to a shift in the theory of history
as well, with older questions about the unifying causal connections between events
giving way to questions about the isolation of certain 'strata' of history and about the
possible "systems of relations" in which those strata may be understood.

Secondly, there has been a shift in disciplines that address the history of ideas (of
science, of philosophy, of literature, etc). The shift here has been from a focus on
"continuities of thought" toward a focus on "disruptions," moments of transformation
or threshold when ways of thinking have undergone large-scale changes. This view
of history is most interested in discontinuities, with historical relations taking the form
of passing or contingent affinities or "compatibilities" (Foucault calls these
"architectonic unities"). The historical problem in these fields, then, "is no longer one
of tradition, of tracing a line, but one of division, of limits; it is no longer one of lasting
foundations, but one of transformations that serve as new foundations, the rebuilding
of foundations" (any idea of ultimate origins, then, becomes irrelevant). Historical
causality is also problematized, as these new methods uncover what Foucault calls
"recurrent distributions," the multiplicity of frameworks that must be applied to any
area of history: in the case of the history of science, for example, there are always
"several pasts, several forms of connexion, several hierarchies of importance,
several networks of determination, several teleologies, for one and the same

science."

In short, then, history proper seems to be seeking deep,

hidden, stable structures, while the history of thought seems to
be discovering ever more discontinuities and ruptures. But
Foucault says that this apparent contrast is a false one: both
kinds of historical practice pose "the same problems," and they
have only "provoked opposite effects on the surface." In fact,
all of the new problems that Foucault has just outlined stem
from one process: "the questioning of the document." Instead
of its traditional role as a mere vehicle for history as a kind of
memory, the document is now becoming important in and of
itself. This change stands to redefine the entirety of the
historical practice: "history is one way in which a society
recognizes and develops a mass of documentation with which it
is inextricably linked." This new view of history, in which
documents become artifacts or "monuments," means that
history now aspires to be a kind of "archeology."

This change has four major consequences. First, there is an

intensive questioning of received ideas about the various kinds
of series that constitute history; rather than taking for granted
certain kinds of progressive series (primarily the assumption of
a "continuous chronology of reason invariably traced back to
some inaccessible origin") and then fitting events into that
series, historians are questioning the series themselves. This
process has resulted in the "surface effects" detailed above in
history and in the history of ideas. Second, the notion of
discontinuity assumes a major and pervasive role in historical
practice across the board. Discontinuity precedes the work of
the historian, as he or she tries to select between discontinuous
levels of analysis and types of periodization in which to address
their (documentary) material; and, paradoxically, it
also results from their description, because they are showing
historical limits and moments of breakdown.
Third, there ceases to be any possibility of a "total history," a
history that depends on a united frame for all history or on the
essential spirit or "face" of a given period. Totalizing history is
replaced by "general history," in which no continuities are
presumed in the open field of documentary evidence. We
cannot even posit the traditional "parallel histories" of law,
economics, the arts, etc.; we must rather accept a much more
heterogeneous "form[s] of relation." Finally, this "questioning of
the document" raises a host of new methodological problems
for the historian: how should one construct and delimit bodies
("corpora") of documents? What levels of analysis and what
"principles of choice" inform such constructions? What kinds of
limits should be drawn to define groups, regions, or periods?
These problems existed before in the field of the philosophy of
history, but they now characterize the methodological field of
history itself.

Foucault asks why this massive and pervasive change has not
been noted before. His answer is a largely psychoanalytic one:
the idea of an ordered, teleological, and continuous history
serves to make "human consciousness the original subject of all
historical development and all action." Essentially, we have
insisted on a whole, centered notion of the human subject, and
therefore on the continuous history that goes hand in hand with
such a subject. Marx (by founding a purely relational analysis),
Nietzsche (by replacing original rational foundations with a
moral genealogy), and Freud (by showing that we are not
transparent to ourselves) all challenged this tradition of
keeping history in a "tranquilized sleep" by introducing a

radical discontinuity to history and its human subject.

The Archeology of Knowledge is to be a book that gives a broad

theoretical account of Foucault's method in his previous,
directly historical works: Madness and Civilization, The Birth of
the Clinic, and The Order of Things. (Each of these works, he
notes, had a flaw owing to the then undeveloped nature of the
theoretical ideas published here: the first came too close to
"admitting a general subject of history, the second threatened
specificity by being too structural, and the third may have
implied a 'cultural totality'").

13. The Death of the Author: Ronald Barthes.

‘The Death of the Author’ makes several bold but important claims about the relationship
between author and literary text: that works of literature are not original; and that the
meaning of a work of literature cannot be determined simply by looking to the author of that
work. Instead, we as readers are constantly working to create the meaning of a text.

Writing is ‘the destruction of every voice’ – not the creation of a voice, which is how we
tend to think of a creative art such as writing. The literary text is not original, either: indeed,
every text is a ‘tissue of quotations’.

This may strike us as Barthes overplaying his hand – surely works of literature contain
original thoughts, phrases, and ideas, and aren’t literally just a string of quotations from
existing works? – but Barthes is interested in language throughout ‘The Death of the Author’,
and it’s true that in every work of literature the words the author uses, those raw materials
through which meaning is created, are familiar words, and therefore not original: merely put
together in a slightly new way.(A notable exception is in the nonsense works of Lewis
Carroll, whose ‘Jabberwocky’ does contain a whole host of original words; but part of the fun
is that we recognise this poem as the exception, rather than the normal way works of
literature generate their meaning.)

‘The Death of the Author’ was a bold and influential statement, but its argument had
numerous precursors: his emphasis on impersonality, for instance, had already been made
almost half a century earlier by T. S. Eliot, in his 1919 essay ‘Tradition and the Individual
Talent’, although Eliot still believed in the poet as an important source of the written text.

And in the mid-twentieth century, New Criticism, particularly in the United States, argued
that the text had meaning in isolation, separate from the author who produced it, and that
searching for authorial intention in the work of literature was something of a red herring.

‘The Death of the Author’ makes a compelling argument about the way a work of literature
has meaning in relation to its readers rather than its author. We twenty-first-century readers
of Dickens are not the same people as the Victorians who read his work when its author was
alive, for instance. Words change their meanings over time and take on new resonance.

However, we might counter Barthes’ argument by making a couple of points. The first is
perhaps an obvious one: that it needn’t be an ‘either/or’ and that the birth of the reader
doesn’t necessarily have to be at the cost of the death of the author. We can read Keats’s
poems and try to understand what the young Romantic poet meant by his words, what he was
trying to say as the author of the work, while also acknowledging the fact that ‘Ode on a
Grecian Urn’ has new resonances for us, two centuries after it was written.

The second point is that viewing a work of literature as a mere ‘tissue of signs’ threatens to
put it on the same level as a bus timetable or a telephone directory. They, too, contain nothing
but familiar words, names, and numbers, and are not original. Works of literature may (in the
main) draw on familiar words and even familiar phrases, but great works of art put these
words and ‘signs’ into new combinations – and there is a virtually infinite number of those –
which can create new meanings for us.

So we might view the relationship between author, text, and reader as a tripartite partnership
rather than bipartite one: all three elements are important in creating the text’s meaning.

If I give a poem to my students and don’t tell them anything about its author, they can
analyse the poem’s language and try to determine its meaning; but knowing something about
the author and their context may help to reveal new meanings which are important in
understanding the text. As soon as we know a poem is by Sylvia Plath, and we can bring the
details of her life (and death) to our reading of the poem, its meaning changes.

So we do need to bear in mind who wrote a text and how that might be significant in creating
its meaning, even if we also need to acknowledge (as Barthes does) that once a text is written
and goes out into the world, it is no longer solely the property of the author who wrote it, but
its meaning is also generated by those who read it.

14.Raymond Williams: Literature

Marxism and Literature is a work of nonfiction by Raymond Henry

Williams. The book discusses the existing body of Marxist literature
where in Williams adds his own theory of cultural materialism to the
collection. Marxism and Literature was first published in 1977 by Oxford
University Press. It has since been republished in various editions.
Williams taught drama at the University of Cambridge and is known for
his influence within New Left schools of thought.

His theories laid the way for an entirely new approach to Marxist
principles and Marxist critiques of arts and culture. It’s important to note
that Williams wrote this book during a period when Marxist ideas
suffered a lot of scrutiny and challenges, as did the concept of “society”
more generally.

Williams has a clear thesis for this work. He intends to review

longstanding, unquestioned Marxist principles and expose why they are
problematic and unsound. He also discusses what he believes to be a
glaring problem with literary theory and how it’s divisive. To solve all
these problems, Williams proposes a new theory—cultural materialism.

He believes that cultural materialism is central to all Marxist thinking,

and that by bringing together Marxist theories of language and Marxist
theories of literature, he can reimagine Marxism. Marxism and
Literature is divided into three broad parts—basic concepts, cultural
theory, and literary criticism. Although Williams handles these
components separately, he does demonstrate how they link together and
why they should be unified.

The first chapter considers the broad principles of culture, society, and
economy. Williams explains that the whole definition of “culture” is
undergoing a paradigm shift, so it’s vital to go back to its most basic
definition to see where the problems lie. He notes that we are following
the bourgeois ideals for culture, society, and economy, which revolve
around commerce and capitalism.

Williams points out that culture now equates with civilization, which is in
turn built around refinement, progress, and celebration of this new so-
called “order.” Essentially, we’re living in a world where cultural
enlightenment is the goal, and so anything which doesn’t contribute to
this economically is not valuable. Williams is concerned that traditional
Marxism doesn’t go far enough to challenge the bourgeois cultural ideal,
and for this reason Marxism fails.

Language studies underpin much of the book. Williams contends that

Marxism doesn't add much to the understanding of language, therefore
Marxists have a responsibility to seize missed opportunities for reimaging
language. He explains how words, signs, etc. gather meaning through
cultural usage and social interactions. Although words may have a
cluster of supposed meanings, the meaning of words are changeable:
they are not static or inherent. For this reason, Williams believes
Marxism must consider language alongside culture.
Literature is the more specific use of language Williams concerns himself
with. He explains how literature changed its meaning, purpose, and
value following capitalism, and so Marxism must now revisit its literary
theories. It’s no longer, for example, so much about the inherent act of
writing itself, but how the writing is received and reviewed. The fact that
literary critiquing is now a profession embodies what Williams means—
the value of literature is now commodified. It’s also traditionally
associated with the bourgeoisie.

Williams also stresses that Marxist theories on ideology must be revised,

as the term “ideology” is now a “catch-all” for any thinking which is not
Marxist. This argument closes. Part I of the book.

Part II considers both base and superstructure, which are

traditional foundations of Marxist theory. Williams criticizes the
idea that the base, including the oppressed and oppressor
relationship, equals the foundations of a society upon which the
superstructure develops. Williams argues that this will always
favor the base because how the oppressor holds down the
oppressed shapes the society. This means the superstructure
can’t change without changing the fundamental relationships
within that society.

Williams also worries that Marxism doesn’t properly consider

concepts such as traditions, which Marxists tend to see as
simply part of the history of a superstructure. However,
traditions allow society to select from its past and shape its
presence, and they are also not static. Williams explains how
this shift begins in institutions, such as schools or religious
worship. This then gives equal weight to the superstructure,
which can influence the base.

Part III looks at literary theory and how literature is now

aesthetic and a means of capturing artistic quality. Williams
believes there’s value, on one hand, to keeping aesthetics and
literature separate because it lets them remain important in a
society that often tries to exclude them.
15.Orietalism by Edward Said

Summary
In Chapter 1, Part 1, Said defines what he means by Orientalism. He does so through the
evaluation of specific Orientalists at a time when the Orient itself was defined generally as "Asia
or the East, geographically, morally, culturally." In 1910 Arthur James Balfour addressed his
qualifications for being "superior with regard to people you choose to call Oriental." He argued he
was able to speak regarding the Orient based on his knowledge of the Orient civilization.
Another well-known Orientalist was Lord Cromer, England's representative in Egypt between
1883 and 1907. Rather than speaking about the Orient as an abstract, Cromer spoke more
specifically about his experiences in India and Egypt, emphasizing that both knowledge and
power made the management of these countries easy. Said argues that these aspects of
Orientalism did not serve to justify colonialism after the fact but rather provided the premise for
colonial rule at the outset. The initial creation of a framework of domination during the 18th and
19th centuries allowed for domination to occur. This framework was initially characterized as an
"us" versus "them" dichotomy, established by those who were in power, and thus in a position to
act as knowledge producers. Said states that this is the basis of the "main intellectual issue
raised by Orientalism." In those cases where an "us" versus "them" dichotomy arises, is it
possible to avoid the "hostility expressed by the division"? Said argues that to understand how
the framework of Orientalism arose, it is necessary to understand the historical context under
which it was generated. At its core, Orientalism represented a system of "knowledge" and
perceived "power" regarding the Orient that framed interactions with the West. Said concludes
the chapter by setting up the historical timeline for the development of Orientalism through the
18th–20th centuries he goes on to describe in later parts.

Said sets up his argument against Orientalism by focusing on the views of two early Orientalists,
Arthur James Balfour and Lord Cromer. By beginning the text with specific definitions of
Orientalism, Said sets the tone for the rest of the text. Rather than focus on flushing out a purely
theoretical argument, he uses specific, textual examples to support his ideas. While previous
scholarly works had broached similar ideas regarding Orientalism, the strength of Said's text—
and why it continues to be considered one of the seminal anthropological works—is the level of
detail he provides across a wide span of history. In order to do this, Said provides sections of
Balfour and Cromer's speeches, breaking down their arguments sentence-by-sentence and
word-by-word. From the outset, he provides historical evidence for the use of the
terms Orient and Orientalism within literature.
Thus, Said is able to make the argument that these terms have a historical basis found in
literature. This is a fundamental concept for his argument that Orientalism was formed from
previously conceived definitions and understandings. These archaic understandings of a
complex group of people, clumped under the term Orient, were continuously used for centuries
and up to the present day. Said claims their basis is in original, literary texts such as "Chaucer
and Mandeville ... Shakespeare, Dryden, Pope, and Byron."
Furthermore, by breaking down the individual arguments of Balfour and Cromer, Said is able to
evaluate their tone and perspective to illustrate how they create an "us" versus "them"
dichotomy, how the Orient is dehumanized, and how the natives' power to speak is removed.
Using both Balfour and Cromer, Said is able to show that, in the case of two different Orientalists
—one removed from the Orient and the other directly involved in the everyday management of
the Orient—the framework for talking about the Orient remained the same. Thus, Orientalism
was not confined to a specific group of people, but was a pervasive paradigm.

16. Feminist Criticism in Wilderness

The essay by Elaine Showalter is an attempt to study the field of literary

criticism from the feminist point of view. Showalter has tried to study the
various aspects of feminist criticism while also pointing out the aims it
should be trying to attain, the problems it faces and the reasons for these
problems.The essay considers the fact that like feminist creative writers,
feminist critics also face certain obstacles which have got highlighted
after the rise of feminism. Showalter has tried to analyze in detail the
belief that feminist criticism is in wilderness, which means, feminist
critics are not capable enough to produce coherent speculations.

1. Pluralism and the Feminist Critique

Showalter begins this essay by pointing out a dialogue by Carolyn

Heilbrun and Catherine Stimpson. They had pointed out that two poles
were identifiable in feminist literary criticism- one concentrating on the
errors of the past and the other focus on the beauty of imagination. Both
these aspects contribute in removing the effects of ‘female servitude’ that
has existed in the society since ages. She also quotes Matthew Arnold to
state that criticism, as a process, has to pass through a stage of
wilderness to reach at the desired standards. Then, taking support from
Geoffrey Hartman’s quote, she forwards the belief that all criticism, and
not only feminist criticism, is in wilderness. Analyzing one of the reasons
for this, so called, wilderness in feminist criticism, she clarifies that the
reason is lack of an exclusive theoretical framework for feminist criticism.
It is always seen in association with some other strategy and, therefore,
fails to work consistently. For instance, feminist critics supporting
Marxism treat feminist criticism differently than those opposing racism.

An early obstacle in establishment of the above mentioned theoretical

framework was the inability of many women to respond to the demand of
openness required for the success of feminist criticism. In some aspects of
society, women had been locked out and in some others they had been
locked in. they were not allowed to participate in some aspects of social
interaction and forced to participate in some others. Thus, some believed
feminism to be equivalent to opposition to the establish canons.

Showalter says that what seemed to be ‘a theoretical impasse’ was

actually an evolutionary phase. During this stage, feminist criticism
moved on from the stage of awakening to the stage marked by ‘anxiety
about the isolation of feminist criticism from a critical community’. The
definition of feminist criticism with reference to other feminist theories
has been a serious debate and feminist critics have been unable to
address this issue. They fail to understand the need to think beyond their
own beliefs as well and to communicate with the systems they wish to
change. Although feminist critics have communicated with these systems
but the communication has been unclear being based entirely on the
media of feminist critics.

There are two modes of feminist criticism. Showalter calls the first one
‘feminist reading’ or ‘feminist critique’. It is concerned to the reading of
texts to understand the image of woman in literature and to work out the
beliefs and stereotypes concerned to woman highlighted and publicized
by literary texts. This is a mode of interpretation and has been quite
influential in decoding the relationship of women to literature.

Showalter points out that feminist criticism is revisionist being dependent

on male creative theory, i.e. the creative works and interpretations
produced on the basis of male experience. Feminist critics try to analyze
and respond to male creative theory. This need to be changed to achieve
feminist criticism that is ‘women centred, independent and intellectually
coherent’.

2. Defining the Feminine: Gynocritics and the Woman’s Text

It is well accepted that a woman’s writing would always be feminine but
defining ‘feminine’ has always been a problem. The second mode of
feminist criticism concentrates on this definition. It analyzes women as
writers. It undertakes the study of ‘history, styles, themes, genres, and
structures of writing by women’. It also studies in details the various
aspects of female creativity and female literary tradition. Showalter has
coined the term ‘gynocritics’ for the ‘specialized critical discourse’ that
uses women’s writings as its exclusive subject. However, identifying the
unique elements of women’s writings is again a problem. French Feminist
Criticism has identified the influence of female body on female language
and texts. However, the issue has been approached towards differently in
different countries. Four basic models of difference are being used most
commonly-biological, linguistic, psychoanalytic and cultural. Each of
these models is like a school of gynocentric feminist criticism and has its
own preferences for texts, methods and beliefs.

3. Women’s Writing and Woman’s Body

It is one of the clearest statements of gender difference. Theories like that

of better developed frontal lobes in case of males and of the use of 20
percent of creative energy for physiological functions in case of women
have been used in the past to advocate the superiority of men over
women. Many critics have associated the act of creation of text to the
generative process which only male used to be considered capable of
undertaking. The metaphor of literary paternity used to be associated to
penis and, thus, to male. Showalter, however, associates it to womb
comparing literary creativity to childbirth. The level and implication of the
mention of anatomy in text by male and female writers, respectively, has
also been different. However, study of biological imagery in women’s
writings could be helpful only when other factors affecting them are also
kept in mind.

4. Women’s Writing and Women’s Language

This concept analyzes if men and women use language differently while
creating texts. It studies if factors like biology, social preferences and
cultural beliefs could affect the language of a gender. It also considers the
concept of ‘the oppressor’s language’, the use of language by men to
dominate women. For woman, the popular language could be like a
foreign language which she is unable to be comfortable with. So, there is
a call for development of separate feminine language. However, the irony
is that even in communities where women are believed to have developed
a separate language, their language is marked by secrecy.

The differences in male and female speech in terms of ‘speech, intonation

and language use’ are the most obvious examples of difference in man’s
and woman’s language. Feminist criticism should, most importantly, work
for providing women an access to language so that a wide range of words
is available to them. Language is sufficient enough to give expression to
women’s consciousness only if she is not denied access to all the
resources of language.

5. Women’s Writing and Woman’s Psyche

This aspect deals with the connection between author’s psyche and
creative process in general. The difference in creative process in case of a
male and a female is then studied on the basis of this connection. Various
psychological theories have suggested that female is inferior in terms of
creative capabilities. Critics have been trying to establish new principles
of feminist psychoanalysis which would try to differentiate gender
identities rather than following Freudian theories. Certain common
emotional dimensions could be identified in texts of women writers
belonging to different countries.
17. Psychological criticism, Feminism
Psychological Criticism is
 a research method, a type of textual research, that literary critics
use to interpret texts
 a genre of discourse employed by literary critics used to share the
results of their interpretive efforts.
Psychological criticism, or psychoanalytic criticism, took off in popularity
in the early decades of the twentieth century. Sigmund Freud, who based
some of his theories on analyses of literature, particularly
Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, is the figure primarily associated with
psychological criticism, though Jacques Lacan and Carl Jung have played
key roles as well. Psychological criticism frequently addresses human
behavior—at the conscious and/or unconscious level—as well as the
development of characters through their actions. For example, according
to Freud in The Ego and the Id, a work of literature is an external
expression of the author’s unconscious mind.
Feminism:feminism, the belief in social, economic, and
political equality of the sexes. Although largely originating in the West,
feminism is manifested worldwide and is represented by various
institutions committed to activity on behalf of women’s rights and
interests.
Throughout most of Western history, women were confined to the
domestic sphere, while public life was reserved for men.
In medieval Europe, women were denied the right to own property, to
study, or to participate in public life. At the end of the 19th century in
France, they were still compelled to cover their heads in public, and, in
parts of Germany, a husband still had the right to sell his wife. Even as
late as the early 20th century, women could neither vote nor hold
elective office in Europe and in most of the United States (where several
territories and states granted women’s suffrage long before the federal
government did so). Women were prevented from conducting business
without a male representative, be it father, brother, husband, legal
agent, or even son. Married women could not exercise control over their
own children without the permission of their husbands. Moreover,
women had little or no access to education and were barred from most
professions. In some parts of the world, such restrictions on women
continue today. See also egalitarianism.
18.Archetypal criticism:
Archetypal literary criticism is a theory that interprets a text by focusing on recurring
myths and archetypes in the narrative and symbols, images character types in a
literary work. Archetype denotes recurrent narrative designs, patterns of action,
character types, themes and images which are identifiable in a wide variety of works
of literature, as well as in myths, dreams and even social rituals. Such recurrent
items result from elemental and universal patterns in the human psyche.

Swiss born psychoanalyst, C.G.Jung’s (1875-1961) work speculates about myths

and archetypes in relation to the unconscious. According to him, myths are the
“culturally elaborated representations of the contents of the deepest recess of the
human psyche: the world of the archetypes”. He used the term archetype to refer to
the experiences of our ancestors which get lodged in the ‘collective unconscious’ of
the whole race. Jungian psychoanalysis distinguishes between the personal and
collective unconscious. The collective unconscious is a number of innate thoughts,
feelings, instincts and memories that reside in the unconsciousness of all the people;
‘collective unconscious’ is the ‘psychic disposition shaped by the forces of heredity’.
The content of the collective unconscious are the archetypes which are expressed in
myths, religions, dreams and private fantasies as well as in works of literature.

Archetypal criticism, based on Jung’s psychology, searches texts for collective motifs
of the human psyche, which are held to be common to different historical periods
and languages. These archetypes represent primordial images of the human
unconscious which have retained their structures in various cultures and epochs. It is
through primordial images that universal archetypes are experienced and more
importantly, that the unconscious is revealed. Archetypes such as shadow, fire,
snake, paradise-garden, hell, mother-figure etc. constantly surface in myth and
literature as a limited number of basic patterns of psychic images which lend
themselves to a structural model of explanation. Various cultures, religions, myths
and literatures have recourse to primordial images or archetypes which like a
subconscious language express human fears and hopes. A Jungian analysis
perceives the death-rebirth archetype (Frazer’s) as a symbolic expression of a
process taking place not in the world but in the mind. That process is the return of
the go to the unconscious – a kind of temporary death of the ego – and its re-
emergence, or rebirth, from the unconscious.

Archetypal Criticism was given impetus by Maud Bodkin’s Archetypal Patterns in

Poetry (1934) and flourished during the 1950s and 1960s. The Golden Bough written
by James G. Frazer was the first influential text dealing with cultural mythologies,
which tries to reveal the common structures of myths in different historical periods
and geographical areas. It is a comprehensive survey of the myths, rituals and
religious practices of different societies, especially primitive ones. Frazer identifies
shared practices and mythological beliefs between primitive religions and modern
religions. Frazer argues that the death-rebirth myth, the archetype of archetypes, is
present in almost all cultures and is acted out in terms of cycle of seasons and the
organic cycle of human life and vegetation. The myth is symbolized by death (final
harvest) and rebirth (spring) of the god of vegetation. Other archetypes frequently
traced in literature are the journey underground, the heavenly ascent, the search for
the father, the Paradise/Hades dichotomy, the scapegoat, the earth goddess and the
fatal woman.

The aim of archetypal criticism is in line with the methodology of formalist schools,
which delves beneath the surface of literary texts in their search for recurrent deep
structures. Some other important practitioners of various modes of archetypal
criticism are G.Wilson Knight , Robert Graves, Philip Wheelwright, Richard Chase,
Leslie Fielder and Joseph Campbell, who emphasized the persistence of mythical
patterns in literature.

Northrop Frye:

The most influential contribution to archetypal criticism has been made by the
Candaian mythologist Northrop Frye (1912-91), who places structures of myth at the
heart of the main literary genres. His Anatomy of Criticism , the critical tour de force,
is a touchstone of archetypal criticism. His essay “The Archetypes of Literature”
expresses his dissatisfaction with New Criticism.
According to Frye, the whole body of literary works of any society constitutes what
might be called a self-contained, autonomous universe. He classifies this literary
universe into four categories or mythoi, which are the plot forms or organizing
structural principles. These mythoi correspond to the four seasons of the natural
world” comedy corresponds to spring, romance to summer, tragedy to autumn and
satire to winter. His view of life and of literature are one and the same: life,
structured as concrete universals, is made available in a heightened form in
literature.

Frye’s view of literature is that it is a ‘reservoir of potential values.’ He holds myths as

the conventional structures in literature. Myths are the units which form the
organizing principle of literary work. In other words, literature is reconstructed
mythology. In using the term ‘structure’ in several related senses, Frye anticipated
structuralism in literary criticism. The concept of of ‘vraisemblablisation’ of the
structuralists has close affinities with Frye’s theory. Frye’s view of literature ‘as a total
order of words’ and that works of literature are created out of literature anticipates
the structuralist view of intertextuality. Only in the case of Frye, coherence is to be
achieved by conformity, whereas for the structuralists it is through a play of
difference. Frye restricts the association with other texts to mythological images by
which analogies and identities are established.

The heyday of archetypal criticism began to decline after the 1970s. however, its
impact can still be seen in the interpretation of children’s literature, science fiction,
and feminist criticism.

19. Gate's 'Writing, Race,and the difference it makes'.

Race has had no or very little bearing on the course of literary theory in
20th century. The literary canon is now considered to contain works which
reflect on the general human condition and not particular groups. This has
not always been so: in the 19th century literary theory was interested in
historical perspectives in literature. Literature was interpreted according to
the period in which and the people by whom it was written.

Race was important in criticism. It was considered to be the origins of man,

the truths, ideas and ideals held by the author as part of the race. These
were expressed implicitly and explicitly in the work. Race spans the history of
the race and subsequent connected elements resulting from this long history.
Texts were considered important which elevated the historical/racial element.

Blacks and whites in America, for instance were seen as irreconcilably

different.
Even though in the 20th century emphasis in literary theory was put on the
text, there was some tendency to single out black authors.

2
Race is biologically meaningless. However we insist on distinguishing
between different races in an almost scientific manner. In the context of this
distinction we attribute different characteristics to different races. The
African, then, receives an "otherness". Hundreds are murdered daily because
of racial differences. These differences have been ingrained in language so
that they seem inherent and scientific (such as color descriptions for different
ethnicities – black red yellow etc). These descriptions become associated with
derogatory characteristics.

Gates brings the example of Phillis Wheatley, who had to prove to a panel of
respectable Boston residents in 1772 that she had in fact authored the
poems she professed to have done. Without these the public would not have
believed her to be the author, due to her race. At the time writing was
considered the hallmark characteristic of the human and Africans, illiterate as
they were, were considered inhuman. After Wheatley's book was published it
began to be argued that perhaps she, and so others of her race, were human.

Writing was the hallmark of reason and therefore humanity. Great measures
were taken to retain the inhumanness of slaves by preventing them from
becoming literate. In 1705 Bosman invented a myth to explain the "natural"
inferiority of blacks. In 1748 Hume wrote a philosophical treatise where he
stated whites were the only civilized race. In 1764 Kant wrote that blacks
were stupid. Later, Hegel stated that blacks had no history because of their
illiteracy and without history there is no humanity.

Black writing emerged "as a response to allegations of its absence". Writers

represented both themselves and their race. These writings were
instrumental in the liberation of blacks. Blacks faced the challenge of writing
in the white language while retaining their own. Literary theory needs to
change, to adapt to account for the differences in racial background or
content.