The last issue I address in this chapter is not directly linked to which literary texts that are selected in subject English, but relates more to the overarching purpose of literature in the subject. Why should students read literature at all, and what can students learn when reading literature that they may not learn when reading other types of texts? Is there a value in reading literature for literature’s sake, or should literature mainly be used as a resource to learn other things, such as language and culture?
Several theorists have addressed these questions. Marjorie Perloff writes about the importance of “literary literacy”, namely working with “basic literary problems” that include understanding and interpreting language and text structure as used in different literary genres (1997, p. B5). In more recent years, scholars such as Christiane Lütge (2013) and Laurenz Volkmann (2015) have suggested that literary literacy is especially helpful in terms of furthering intercultural competence, which is an important aim of EFL and ESL teaching. Volkmann argues that this development is the result of the influence of CEFR and the shift towards competences, as “aesthetic education” is no
longer “appreciated as having educational value in itself” (2015, p. 49) – there needs to be a clear aim when students read literature in the classroom. Lütge acknowledges the influence of CEFR, and points out that there are “other dimensions of literariness that cannot easily be broken down into competences”, such as “emotional, cultural or aesthetic aspects”, and that these are just as central in developing students’ intercultural competence as the more measurable aspects of literary literacy are (2013, p. 98). At the center of this discussion lies the distinction between using literature as a resource to learn other things, and working with literature as an independent object of study. In the classroom, literary texts can be argued to have independent meaning when they are taught in order for students to gain more insight into the texts themselves; this is referred to as “literature as object of study” (Parkinson & Thomas, 2000, p. 1). This can be done by focusing on close reading, using literary terminology, and interpreting the text. Conversely, literature is used as a means when the goal of using the text is for students to understand other phenomena better, for example by using literary examples to illustrate linguistic or cultural issues. This is referred to as “literature as resource” (Parkinson & Thomas, 2000, p. 1). However, the distinction between the two is not always easy to pinpoint and describe. For example, the classroom activity of linking a literary text to its historical context may be used for both approaches – what matters is what the aim of the activity is. If the goal of studying the text’s context and literary history is to understand the literary text better, it treats literature as an object of study. If the goal is to understand culture and history better by using the literary text to illustrate elements of society, literature is used as a resource. In practice, however, it will probably be difficult to separate the two approaches; teachers might be working towards both goals at the same time.
The distinction between literature as a resource and literature as an object of study is complicated further by the fact that there are approaches that do not fit into the above dichotomy. One example of this is extensive reading. This is an approach which is characterized by students reading whichever materials they want to silently and individually and as much as possible, there are few follow-up tasks to the reading, and the purposes of reading are “pleasure, information, and general understanding” (R. R. Day & Bamford, 1998, pp. 7-8). Although other types of texts than the literary may be
included in an extensive reading program, this approach nevertheless allows students to focus on the text at hand without being concerned with other aims than the understanding of the text itself – which might seem like an approach that emphasizes treating literature as an object of study. However, since there are supposed to be few tasks linked to the reading, another way of viewing this approach is to see it as not studying literature; students focus on reading the text, not on interpreting and analyzing it. In addition, extensive reading may be used as a resource because it benefits language and reading skills: “free reading results in better reading ability, better writing, larger vocabularies, better spelling and better control of complex grammatical constructions” (Krashen, 2013, p. 15). This means that extensive reading may be seen as an approach that treats literature as a resource while also valuing it as an object of study, or as seeing literature as something that should only be read and not studied at all.
In the educational context of LK-06, the vagueness of the competence aims in the compulsory English course do not indicate whether literature should be used in one way or the other – the curriculum allows for both approaches. Literature is closely linked to social studies by its presence in the main area “Culture, society and literature” (Udir, 2006a; 2013a), indicating that they might be taught together, but not prioritizing one above others. Nevertheless, the verbs used to describe what students should be able to do in the different courses tell us something about how the role of literature is viewed. It is possible to argue that literature as an object of study has a slightly stronger standing in International English (Vg2) and Social Studies English (Vg3) compared to the compulsory course, and a much stronger standing in English Literature and Culture (Vg3). Whereas the students of the compulsory course are supposed to “discuss” and “elaborate on” literature (Udir, 2013a), the students of the elective courses are supposed to “analyse”, “interpret”, and “assess” literary texts (Udir, 2006a).32 This is a
clear indicator of the text being viewed as more important in itself, and this is particularly evident in English Literature and Culture. These differences in verb use could influence the texts that teachers choose and use, but they may also have some
32 As discussed in sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, “analyse”, “interpret”, and “assess” entail more advanced
bearing on how much emphasis teachers place on literary texts and on how they reason around their text choices in the different courses. Ultimately, the question of using literature as a resource or as an object of study is not a matter of either-or, but a matter of how teachers – and the curriculum – argue for the legitimacy of literature in the subject.