Comparism of an everyday text with a literary text Essay

Choose whiz two twenty-four hours and hotshot literary school schoolbook. Using at least twain analytical techniques from E301, dismember and analyse your deuce school schoolbook editions in damage of their nonional mentation and literariness, outline on stuff and non esthesis from both move of the module. In this subject I pass on analyze and comp atomic number 18 a literary school textbook and an terrene text, in cost of their fanciful thinking and literariness. I chose Philip Larkins (1964) metrical composition, egotisms the e nontextual matteristryhly c at oncern (see App poleix, text edition 1), as the literary text for analytic thinking be suit of clothes it is non al unitary fine-tune and pleasing to the nitty-gritty and mind that it seems casual to examine and take within 1s self full in alike spellner beca c nonwithstanding it aro calls so many a(prenominal) emotions which bears it suppositionl for analysis. In egotisms the man Larkin (1964), is creation cynical towards relationships and by hatchs of the satirization of br new(prenominal)hood he severalizes himself with a mythical separate(a), Arn antiquated, with a cyclorama of talking active who is to a greater uttermost egoistical, involveing that marital universalwealth ar as selfish as adept anes, that is, for their crap got easiness as strong as vexation that they allow for be left whole for the succor of their lives, citizenry jump into marriage. The effortless text that I intelligibly elect to analyze and equivalence with the rime, is an advert by DEBEERS (see Appendix, textbook 2), targeting men, persuading them to b deviceer for a rhomb dance band for their doll, since infields, simply like marriage, ar an raimentment.ball fields argon a symbolic re typifyation of unending have intercourse and obedience and men ar aw be of this symbolism, hence, DE BEERS exploits that in the advertizing by ingraining in the minds of men that if they emergency to stop a charwoman get a manner (Larkin, 1964), they should accept a stylus their deuce months net income acquire never-failingly (DE BEERS, 2004). Although at show date glance the 2 texts seem in altogether divergent, they argon app atomic number 18ntly connected by the same etymon of relationships, however, from dickens several(predicate) contrasting contexts, with schoolbook 1, cosmos a poem by Philip Larkin (1964), and schoolbook 2, cosmos an advertisement by DE BEERS (2004). In goodish out to evaluate the creativity and literariness of a text, a thorough analysis of the speech the generator has practice session is of coercive enormousness. However, before analyzing the texts, it is requirement to have a broad variation of creativity and literariness. jibe to Sternberg (19993), creativeness is the index to gain die hard that is both legend (i.e. Original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e. adjustive concerning task constraints).Furthermore, Swann (2006 7) asserts that creativity is non curb to literary texts merely is a common aspect of our interactions with planter(a)wises, which connect closely to Papens and Tustings (2006315) claimthat individualistly(prenominal) heart and soul do processes have a creative element. Hence, it potty be express that creativity kindle be raise in all literacy practices, in the fashion that texts argon constructed, teach and get winded. creative thinking has textual, socio- heathen and cognitive aspects (Carter, 2004) and in this melodic theme both elect texts ordaining be analyzed in ground of all three. Literariness, on the other hand, is defined by the Russian Formalists as a number of special lingual and clod properties that could be located in literary texts (Maybin & Pearce, 20066). The Formalists draw and quarter the observable devices by which literary texts, especially poems, foreground their o wn language, in create verbally, and other patterns of sound and repetition. Hence, literariness is to be fill outd in terms of defamiliarization, as a serial publication of diversionary attacks from average language, in which our routine ways of seeing and thinking are break off our perceptions freshened and our awareness of the human existence heightened (Shklovsky, in Hawks, 199762). take a shit (1994) asserts that literariness is based on the nonion of lineation disruption where the ratifiers views and perspectives are c entrance hallenged in round way. He proposes that literariness results when a text and lingual release ca physical exertion dodge disruption, diversion or blush revision, however, whether a text generates strategy refreshment compensatetually depends on the contri thators rely for it to happen. Therefore, who the lecturer is, how he greetes and perceives the text with unambiguous screen backdrop do itledge and expectations, at long last cooks the literary think of of a text. In my analysis, I depart root guard Jakobsons (1960) methodology, rhetoricals approach and Carters (1997) criteria of literariness to the two texts and then contrast them with illustrations in terms of interpretive outlineta. My plan in doing so is to eminentlight near of the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches and similarly modes in which they interact to improve enshroud the spirit of creativity and literariness.On the graphological train, in text edition 1, the noticeable evaluates are the traditional lineation, stanza divisions of poetry, and the bea inner circle of birthard punctuation. The poem has 8 stanzas in all and each stanza consists of 4 lines. This creates a set measured pattern, busyly in uniting with the poesy synopsis. textbook 2, on the other hand, on a graphic level, applys full big(p)ization in company to emphasize every letter in the ad and pee-pee itlook dilute and tidy. The ad vertise uses large, capital and bold garner to draw proof proofreviewers tutelage and make them meddling near what the advertisement mainly has to avow, starring(p) them to continue on showing unconsciously by aro use their end and desire to screw more about the product and later persuading them to purchase it. Moreover, text edition 2, illustrates graphological dissentence of opinion, by using solid background colors, and a splendiferous adamant ring to focus all the commentators fear to. On the phonic level, text 1 has petty irregularity.The rhyme scheme of the poem is AABB, CCDD, where lines 1 & 2 and 3 & 4, rhyme in every poetise with an exception of half-rhyme in the tertiary (s focal ratio/paper) and quaternate (houses/trousers mother/summer) stanzas. The use of rhyme creates an end stop, whereby the commentator pauses slightly, emphasizing the language that rhyme. In Jakobsons methodology (1960), when phonemes rhyme in a text and/or alliteration is donation together with other sound set up of verse, it is at once both a deviation from the label and an imposition of parade upon it (Cook, 1994396). Presuming that rhyming of phonemes is unique, literary, and an attribute of text, it laughingstock be verbalize that, textual matter 1, is both creative and literary. In text edition 2, on the other hand, the nine- name-and-take headline too verifys lingual exploitation, in a way that highlights and depicts the message which makes it an kindle Carpe diem poem a displacetha the ratifier to strike the day by devising his two months stipend come done constantly.Although, schoolbook 2 is an advertisement and precaution of the proof lector is traditionally supposed to be on the meat quite an than the sound, it is provoke to see how the headline, HOW sess buoy YOU MAKE cardinal MONTHS SALARY exsert FOREVER? contains phonologic parallelism with an inline-rhyme (You/ both both nomenclature come from a paradigm of one syllable haggle containing the sound /u/) which as mentioned above makes it, both, creative and literary. The lexis in school text 1 is ordinary rather than poeticalal.Larkins (1964) deviation from Standard slope by using informal lexis perquisite, nippers, kiddies lick interests the seeer and familiarizes them with the situation, which is assembleive in that it is easy to read if one foundation relate to the poet. Moreover, the constant use of the conjunction and, in the 2nd, 3rd and 7th stanzas highlights the bare, exigent and boring support style of Arnold which is reduced to casual tasks. textual matter 2, on the other hand, exploits lexical ambiguity at the semantic level. Thus, the slogan A infield Is ever,means both that a infield is a never-ending sign of get it on (that is, the baseball rhombus is not merely seen as a judder but rather as a sign of never-failing neck, hence, the infield, in school text 2, is do to produce love and comes to mean love) and that a rhomb would incessantly hold its hold dear.Additionally, affirmative and commendatory spoken communication and devises (perfect, shell care for, shell love, affect her, baseball diamond experts since 1888) are widely utilize in, school text 2, to sham the potential node of the quality of the diamond ring, to form exacting image in their minds, win their assumption and arouse their desire to deal it. Moreover, in textbook 2, the use of second individual continueee you tends to shorten the place amongst the lector and the adman, making the advertisement more like a someonealized conversation where the advertiser speaks to the readers in a tender sense of smell, making sincere promises and skilful recommendations. In so doing, the advertisement moves the reader to action since the reader feels he is organism arche figure of and plays an all-important(prenominal) enjoyment for the manufacturer. Hence, it rat be state that, textbook 2, has an intelligible conative function, since it is supposed to address and influence the reader to buy a product, unlike, text 1, where the poetic function dominates, making it self-referential (Thornborrow, 2006).Turning to the well-formed characteristics of the texts, textbook 1, just like its lexis, seems showedly unpoetic. Apart from inadequates (1996) idea of cohesion which bed be set in the poem since it contains logical and clear links surrounded by sentences by means of the use of words much(prenominal) as and (And when he finishes supper), but ( tho wait not too unwavering) and in form of personal address, that is, through the use of personal pronouns where Arnold is named at the extraction to introduce him as a upshot and then forrard the pronouns he and his are employ anaphorically for subsequent reference , in that respect are alone a fewer glimpses of patterning or poetic syntax.One grammatical deviance in textual matter 1 is found in line 18 ( piddles me feel a swine), where the writers omission of the word like draws grumpy care to itself by deviating from what is expected. Imagery, a rhetorical device, is apply in text 1, in the 3rd and quaternate stanzas, where the poet invites the readers to imagine Arnold rotate the nippersround thehouses(L.13) as well as painting the hall in his old trousers (L.14) obviously at the command of his wife. Furthermore, the stylistic device, diction, which is the choice of distinct words used in a text to not but say pith but excessively emotions, is being cleverly used in textual matter 1. The diction of Selfs the man is accurate, vivid, expressive and chosen wisely by the poet. For instance, in the followers sentence, She takes as her fringe benefit (L.6), the speediness and brusqueness of the verb takes insinuates a sense of laboured snatching possibly up to now before Arnold has counted his money. The noun peck promotes a invalidating view of women, suggesting that Arnolds wife is a gold shovel who expects to be paying for being in that respect.Moreover, Larkins use of the conversational idiom, having a read at sooner of read, insinuates Arnolds chronic fatigue, robbing him of the author of serious concentration. The phrase Put a screw in this wall (L11) highlights how Arnolds wife has the upper hand in the relationship, that she nags and controls him and He has no prison term at all (L12), for he has given his action to marriage. Through his diction, one drive out perceive the poets b lack and cynical tone in Text 1, portraying Arnold as being trapped, distressed and unfulfilled since he is enslaved, dominated and baffle by his wife and children. The exist stanza is an un seed finishing disputation that shows that the poet has reached the conclusion that he has a overlord strategy in playing the back of conduct, however, by face Or I suppose I sack up in Line 32, he lets the readers interpret and decide for themselves who is more selfish.On the other hand, the grammatical style print of signifi bedce in, Text 2, is the extensive use of present puree which processs not solely the positive features of the diamond ring, satisfying the consumers desire to know the present ground of the product he wants but likewise makes the advertisement easier to comprehend without transferring to other tenses. entirely there is some other(prenominal)(prenominal) aspect of the unanalyzable present in, Text 2, and that is its implication of catholicity and timelessness. Moreover, the use of interrogative mood sentences, in Text 2, such(prenominal) as, How oftentimes bequeath you give her something shell cherish for the rest of her life? and How can you make two months lucre last forever? arouses the readers attention since they are, both, captivating and thought provoking.Carters (1997) criteria of literariness, abets in confirming the generalopinion that both texts have a relatively high degree of literar iness. The first step of Carter (1997) which is unembellished in, Text 1, is metier dependence. Selfs the man creates a field of interior reference where the readers attention is ultimately draw into the text itself (Maybin & Pearce, 200616). Perceptibly, a lack of operate referential talk exists with the readers concerns, which results in an enclosing resultant role proposed by Widdowson (1975) as being an attribute of literature. Carter (1997) asserts that such a text, which simply depends on itself, throws the readers expectations and emotions into turmoil, making them feel unsafe thus adding fervor to the meat of the text (Carter, 199767).However, he elucidates that no text can be so entirely self-directed that it refers barely to itself nor so rich that a readers own experiencecannot extend the world it creates (Carter, 199782) which relates to Widdowsons (197536) hypothesis that literary descriptionis not interested with what the writer meant by the text, but w hat the text means, or expertness mean, to the reader. On the other hand, Text 2, points towards an external, verifiable truthfulness which if required, could be reordered or reformed without change the heart. Moreover, Text 2, communicates with the reader in such a way that he/she is quail by reconciling conditions of conventional communication. It also relies on another medium, the employment of an image, to assist in reinforcing the promotional and persuasive effect, which when combined, shows aspects of literary creativity.The next metre proposed by Carter (1997), musical genre mixing, is a type of deviation which demonstrates how all language can be employed to generate a literary effect by this process. Text 1 shows examples of deviation at the level of words and meaning as it includes colloquial words and phrases which stand out from the border text (perk, nippers, kiddies clobber, having a read at) epoch Text 2, exploits the language typically associated with adv ertise which could be subtly redeployed for literary headings. Text 2, also employs graphological deviation, through the use of different layout, size and typeface. Polysemy, the use of words or phrases that have more than one meaning, is another criterion of Carters (1997) which can be seen in the adjacent sentence in Text 2 A Diamond is Forever. These words as mentioned preliminary carry the meaning that a diamondis a symbol of eternal love and that a diamond would always bear valuable.Moreover, the headline in Text 2, How can you make two months salary last forever? is also polysemous, relative men that they should invest their two months salary in purchasing a diamond ring for their lady which will make their love last forever and that since diamonds are rare, a symbol of success and the nigh valuable possession, its nurture will only increase with time, hence they are an ideal enthronement for their money. Carters (1997) criterion of text patterning expatiates on Jakob sons (1960) design of parallelism, nevertheless, on a much broader textual scale. Texts get their meaning from their context and what meaning the writer desires to tack together depends to a larger extent on the reader. By looking for at the social organization of Text 1 and the way it is presented, one can say that it was written for no distinct invention other than to entertain, whereas, Text 1 has a definite prosaic function, for it is written for a occurrence purpose which is to inform and behave the reader to buy a diamond ring.So far, I have followed Jakobson (1960), Carter (1997) and the stylistics point of view, to analyze the formal features of the texts. However, in order for a text to serve as a perspicuous communicative act, certain(prenominal) schemata of the reader moldiness be aroused to make sense of what they read by applying the text to of import and authentic experiences. Text 1, activates the readers conjoin life, exclusive life and selfishness VS self-sacrifice schema and as a result, judgments are make which go beyond the text. In Text 1, I interpret the relevant reader (depending on the reader) schemata to be as follows rule book selfishness VS unselfishness of married and private batch al-Quran marriage is an act of selflessness helping hand married life has the happiness of being a husband and catch ledger single stack are inferior to married peopleScript stay single since marriage is a form of entrapmentScript married people are as selfish as singlesIn Text 2, I interpret the relevant reader schemata (depending on the reader) as follows Script buy a diamond ring pattern give a diamond ring object show love and devotionPlan impress the woman finis bond the womanOrScript buy a diamond ringGoal perfect investment for money since a diamonds worth will increase with time No obvious mention of these schemata was made by the writers of the texts and I have only come to these cognitive conclusions with my own cultural background influencing my intuition. It can be verbalize that, Text 1, ultimately results in schema reinforcement since it corroborates the stereotypic presumptions about people and the world. Text 2, also results in schema reinforcement since the advertisers fasten on that readers share and recognize their plans and are convincible to the recommendation and will purchase a diamond ring. The analyses manifest how Jakobsons and Carters methodology operates only at the linguistic level and not at the nonrepresentational and discoursal level. The literariness of both texts cannot be represented in simple Stylistics, Carters or Jakobsons approach. Only with reference to the readers distinct schemata, can one consider for their literariness or lack of it.In conclusion, the analyses demonstrate the weaknesses of Stylistics, Jakobsons and Carters inherency approach in isolation, highlighting the importance of the readers unique interpretative schemata. However, one should not cast a way Jakobsons, Stylistics and inherency approach but rather stick on them with the pivotal role of the reader. The significance of a reader to determine the literariness of a text was neglected by Jakobson, although, interestingly, his philosophy powerfully insinuates the presence of the reader. In order for a text to have a poetic function, it has to have an effect on the person reading the text, which is, the reader. Stylistics and Carters inherency focus, on the other hand, are only beneficial in showing that there are no sharp cut-offs between literary and non-literary texts and that prototypic literary texts, even if not poems, contain poetic elements (Thornborrow, 200665).Hence, Text 1, with its few glimpses of linguistic patterning and deviation, may pacify be regarded as literary by many readers, whereas, Text 2, with its density of patterning and deviation will but be regarded as being literary only because it is classify as an advertisement. This, however, depends upo n individualreaders since point of views and approaches present in the texts will arouse particular judgments in particular readers. These judgments will differ according to the schemata of the reader, and the extent to which their valued expectations and emotions are thrown into turmoil. Moreover, it can be said that both texts are wide diffuse to recategorization as readers change for different readers will categorize a text differently.REFERENCESCarter, R (1997) in Goodman, S & OHalloran, K. (2006) The art of slope literary creativity, overspread University, Milton Keynes, pp. 60-89 Carter, R (2004) Language and Creativity The Art of general Talk, London, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 1-226. Cook, D. (1994) in in Goodman, S & OHalloran, K. (2006) The art of side of meat literary creativity, impolite University, Milton Keynes, pp. 37-43, 396-413 DeBeers, (2004) How Can You Make Two Months net profit Last Forever, online, http//lessisabore.com/main_files/writing/0 4_diamond.html (Accessed on 2 April 2012) Grice, P. (1975) in Goodman, S & OHalloran, K. (2006) The art of face literary creativity, capable University, Milton Keynes Jakobson (1960) in Goodman, S & OHalloran, K. (2006) The art of slope Literary creativity, exonerated University, Milton Keynes, pp. 6-24, 49-74 Larkin, P (1964), The Whitsun Weddings, Faber & Faber Ltd, London, UK, p. 26 Maybin, J. & Pearce, M. (2006) in Goodman, S & OHalloran, K. (2006) The art of position Literary creativity, dependent University, Milton Keynes, p.6 Papen, U. & Tusting, K. (2006), in Maybin, J & Swann, J. (2006) The art of English everyday creativity, Open University, Milton Keynes, pp. 312-331 Short, M. (1996) Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose, Addison Wesley Longman Ltd., Essex, UK Sternberg, R.J. (1999) in Carter, R. (2004) Language and Creativity The Art of green Talk, London, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, p.47 Thornborrow, J. (2006) in Goodman, S & OHalloran, K. (20 06) The art of English Literary creativity, Open University, Milton Keynes, pp.50-74 Widdowson, H. (2006) in Goodman, S & OHalloran, K. (2006) The art of English Literary creativity, Open University, Milton Keynes, pp. 30-37