'Comparism of an everyday text with a literary text Essay\r'

'Choose hotshot every day and oneness literary schoolbook edition. development at least 2 analytical techniques from E301, decompose and comp ar your two textual matters in basis of their creativity and literariness, drawing on material from both(prenominal) part of the module. In this stem I ordain take and comp be a literary text and an occasional text, in terms of their creativity and literariness. I chose Philip Larkin’s (1964) poem, ‘Self’s the reality’ ( seem Appendix, textbook 1), as the literary text for analysis beca engagement it is non further smooth and pleasing to the eye and mind that it sees unstrained to run down and contain within one’s self nonwith associationing also beca part it percolates so some(prenominal) emotions which look ats it ideal for analysis. In ‘Self’s the man’ Larkin (1964), is organism cynical towards relationships and through the satirization of marriage; he contra sts himself with a mythical another(prenominal)wise, Arnold, with a view of lecture most who is more self-seeking, claiming that unite people atomic number 18 as selfish as single ones, that is, for their stimulate comfort as well as apprehension that they result be left alone for the nap of their lives, people jump into marriage. The everyday text that I name chosen to analyze and comp atomic number 18 with the poem, is an advert by DEBEERS (see Appendix, text edition 2), targeting men, persuading them to buy a rhomb large number for their lady, since ball fields, full deal marriage, are an trustment.\r\nb entirely fields are a symbolisation of double-dyed(a) jockey and idolatry and men are aware of this symbolism, thereof, DE BEERS exploits that in the ad by ingraining in the minds of men that if they deprivation to stop ‘a charr getting a panache(p)’ (Larkin, 1964), they should support their ‘two months’ salary in the lo ng run endlessly’ (DE BEERS, 2004). Although at first glance the two texts seem completely several(predicate), they are seemingly connected by the same theme of ‘relationships’, however, from two different severalise contexts, with text edition 1, universe a poem by Philip Larkin (1964), and text edition 2, being an advertising by DE BEERS (2004). In place to evaluate the creativity and literariness of a text, a thorough analysis of the phrase the writer has employ is of supreme importance. However, before analyzing the texts, it is necessary to gestate a broad interpretation of creativity and literariness. According to Sternberg (1999:3), ‘ originalness is the ability to produce work that is both wise (i.e. Original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e. Adaptive concerning task constraints).\r\nFurthermore, Swann (2006: 7) asserts that ‘creativity is not restricted to literary texts entirely is a frequent aspect of our inter exertions w ith others’, which tie in closely to Papen’s and Tusting’s (2006:315) claim that ‘ solo mean making processes have a creative element’. Hence, it keep be said that creativity thunder mug be aftermath in all literacy practices, in the stee basketball hoop that texts are constructed, read and interpreted. Creativity has textual, socio-cultural and cognitive aspects (Carter, 2004) and in this paper both chosen texts forget be dealvass in terms of all three. Literariness, on the other hand, is defined by the Russian Formalists as a sum of special linguistic and stratumal ‘properties that could be located in literary texts’ (Maybin &type A; Pearce, 2006:6). The Formalists explain the observable ‘devices’ by which literary texts, especially poems, cozy up their own language, in poetry, and other patterns of sound and repetition. Hence, literariness is to be grokd in terms of defamiliarization, as a series of deviat ions from ‘ habitual’ language, ‘in which our routine ways of seeing and thinking are disrupted; our perceptions freshened; and our consciousness of the knowledge domain heightened’ (Shklovsky, in Hawks, 1997:62).\r\nCook (1994) asserts that literariness is based on the notion of outline disruption where the referee’s views and perspectives are c manor hallenged in some way. He proposes that literariness results when a text and linguistic deviation cause system disruption, refreshment or even change, however, whether a text stupefys schema refreshment ultimately depends on the lecturer’s desire for it to happen. Therefore, who the reviewer is, how he processiones and perceives the text with clear-cut backg approximately beledge and expectations, ultimately determines the literary observe of a text. In my analysis, I will first apply Jakobson’s (1960) methodology, stylistics approach and Carter’s (1997) criteria of li terariness to the two texts and then contrast them with illustrations in terms of interpretative schemata. My intention in doing so is to spotlight some of the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches and also modes in which they interact to dtype Aen comprehend the nature of creativity and literariness.\r\nOn the graphological level, in school text 1, the noticeable attributes are the traditional lineation, stanza divisions of poetry, and the bearing of standard punctuation. The poem has 8 stanzas in all and each stanza consists of 4 lines. This creates a set metrical pattern, particularly in conjunction with the rhyme scheme. Text 2, on the other hand, on a intense level, uses full capitalization in order to emphasize every letter in the ad and make it look trim and tidy. The newspaper headline uses larger, capital and daredevil letters to draw proof commentators’ attention and make them homophile(a) about what the advertisement mainly has to say, leading them to cross on reading unconsciously by aro exploitation their curio and desire to know more about the product and subsequently persuading them to buy it. Moreover, Text 2, illustrates graphological deviation, by using solid flat coat colors, and a brilliant diamond ring to focus all the reviewer’s attention to. On the phonic level, Text 1 has little irregularity.\r\nThe rhyme scheme of the poem is AABB, CCDD, where lines 1 & deoxyadenosine monophosphate; 2 and 3 & 4, rhyme in every verse with an exception of half-rhyme in the 3rd (supper/paper) and 4th (houses/trousers; mother/summer) stanzas. The use of rhyme creates an ‘end stop’, whereby the lector pauses slightly, emphasizing the delivery that rhyme. In Jakobson’s methodology (1960), when phonemes rhyme in a text and/or alliteration is set up together with other sound effects of verse, ‘it is at once both a deviation from the work out and an imposition of order upon it’ (Cook, 1994:396). Presuming that rhyming of phonemes is unique, literary, and an attribute of text, it can be said that, Text 1, is both creative and literary. In Text 2, on the other hand, the nine- term headline also contains linguistic exploitation, in a way that upliftedlights and depicts the message which makes it an interesting Carpe diem poem urging the reader to seize the day by making his two months’ salary last unendingly.\r\nAlthough, Text 2 is an advertisement and attention of the reader is traditionally supposed to be on the meaning rather than the sound, it is interesting to see how the headline, ‘HOW CAN YOU MAKE TWO MONTHS’ SALARY pass away FOREVER?’ contains phonological parallelism with an inline-rhyme (You/Two: both rowing come from a paradigm of one syllable words containing the sound /uː/) which as respected to a higher place makes it, both, creative and literary. The lexis in Text 1 is ‘ordinary’ rather than ‘poet ic’.\r\nLarkin’s (1964) deviation from touchstone side of meat by using colloquial lexis: ‘ pick up’, ‘nippers’, ‘kiddies’ clobber’; interests the reader and familiarizes them with the situation, which is effective in that it is flabby to read if one can relate to the poet. Moreover, the uninterrupted use of the conjunction ‘and’, in the 2nd, 3rd and seventh stanzas highlights the bare, repetitive and boring emotional state dash of Arnold which is reduced to sublunary tasks. Text 2, on the other hand, exploits lexical equivocalness at the semantic level. Thus, the slogan â€Å"A diamond Is Forever,” means both that ‘a diamond is a never-ending sign of love’ (that is, the diamond is not merely seen as a rock but rather as a sign of eternal love, hence, the diamond, in Text 2, is made to produce love and comes to mean ‘love’) and that ‘a diamond would eer hold its va lue’.\r\nAdditionally, affirmative and commendatory words and phrases (‘ sodding(a)’, ‘she’ll cherish’, ‘she’ll love’, ‘surprise her’, ‘diamond experts since 1888’) are widely apply in, Text 2, to impress the strength customer of the quality of the diamond ring, to form convinced(p) image in their minds, win their trust and arouse their desire to buy it. Moreover, in Text 2, the use of second person addressee â€Å"you” tends to shorten the distance amidst the reader and the advertiser, making the advertisement more like a face-to-face conversation where the advertiser speaks to the readers in a tender tone, making sincere promises and skillful recommendations. In so doing, the advertisement moves the reader to action since the reader good senses he is being belief of and plays an all important(p) role for the manufacturer. Hence, it can be said that, Text 2, has an obvious conative scat, 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).\r\nTurning to the grammatical characteristics of the texts, Text 1, just like its lexis, seems pointedly ‘unpoetic’. Apart from Short’s (1996) idea of cohesion which can be place in the poem since it contains logical and clear links between execrations through the use of words much(prenominal) as ‘and’ (‘And when he finishes supper’), ‘but’ (‘ notwithstanding wait not too fast’) and in form of personal reference, that is, through the use of personal pronouns where Arnold is named at the beginning to introduce him as a effect and then onwards the pronouns ‘he’ and ‘his’ are utilize anaphorically for subsequent reference , there are unaccompanied(prenominal) a few glimpses of patterning or ‘poe tic’ syntax.\r\n cardinal grammatical deviance in Text 1 is found in line 18 (‘Makes me feel a swine’), where the writer’s omission of the word ‘like’ draws particular attention to itself by deviating from what is expected. Imagery, a stylistic device, is used in Text 1, in the 3rd and 4th stanzas, where the poet invites the readers to imagine Arnold wheeling the ‘nippers’…round the houses’(L.13) as well as painting the hall ‘in his old trousers’ (L.14) obviously at the tender of his married woman. Furthermore, the stylistic device, phraseology, which is the choice of distinct words used in a text to not scarce communicate meaning but also emotions, is being cleverly used in Text 1. The diction of ‘Self’s the man’ is accurate, vivid, expressive and chosen wisely by the poet. For instance, in the following sentence, ‘She takes as her perk’ (L.6), the ‘speedinessâ⠂¬â„¢ and ‘brusqueness’ of the verb ‘takes’ insinuates a sense of squeeze snatching possibly even before Arnold has counted his notes. The noun ‘perk’ promotes a negative view of women, suggesting that Arnold’s wife is a gold digger who expects to be paid for being there.\r\nMoreover, Larkin’s use of the colloquial idiom, ‘having a read at…’ instead of ‘read’, insinuates Arnold’s chronic fatigue, robbing him of the power of serious concentration. The phrase ‘Put a screw in this wall’ (L11) highlights how Arnold’s wife has the upper hand in the relationship, that she nags and controls him and ‘He has no time at all’ (L12), for he has accustomed his life to marriage. Through his diction, one can perceive the poet’s sar swingic and cynical tone in Text 1, portraying Arnold as being trapped, disturbed and unfulfilled since he is enslaved, dominated and directed by his wife and children. The last stanza is an indecisive finishing logical argument that shows that the poet has reached the conclusion that he has a superior system in playing the game of life, however, by precept ‘Or †I suppose I can’ in Line 32, he lets the readers interpret and finalize for themselves who is more selfish.\r\nOn the other hand, the grammatical style marker of significance in, Text 2, is the extensive use of designate tense which demonstrates not only the corroborative features of the diamond ring, satisfying the consumer’s desire to know the state state of the product he wants but also makes the advertisement easier to comprehend without transferring to other tenses. But there is another aspect of the simple present in, Text 2, and that is its implication of universality and timelessness. Moreover, the use of interrogatory sentences, in Text 2, such(prenominal) as, ‘How often will you give her something sheâ€⠄¢ll cherish for the rest of her life?’ and ‘How can you make two months’ salary last forever?’ arouses the reader’s attention since they are, both, captivating and thought provoking.\r\nCarter’s (1997) criteria of literariness, assists in confirming the general sound judgment that both texts have a relatively high degree of literariness. The first quantity of Carter (1997) which is evident in, Text 1, is medium dependence. ‘Self’s the man’ creates a world of internal reference where the reader’s attention is ultimately ‘drawn into the text itself’ (Maybin & Pearce, 2006:16). Perceptibly, a privation of direct referential dialogue exists with the reader’s concerns, which results in an ‘enclosing effect’ proposed by Widdowson (1975) as being an attribute of literature. Carter (1997) asserts that such a text, which exclusively depends on itself, throws the reader’s expec tations and emotions into turmoil, making them ‘feel insecure thus adding fervor to the meaning of the text’ (Carter, 1997:67).\r\nHowever, he elucidates that ‘no text can be so entirely autonomous that it refers only to itself nor so rich that a reader’s own experience…cannot extend the world it creates’ (Carter, 1997:82) which relates to Widdowson’s (1975:36) theory that ‘literary interpretation…is not concerned with what the writer meant by the text, but what the text means, or might mean, to the reader’. On the other hand, Text 2, points towards an external, verifiable reality which if required, could be reordered or reformed without altering the meaning. Moreover, Text 2, communicates with the reader in such a way that he/she is echo by cooperative conditions of conventional communication. It also relies on another medium, the employment of an image, to assist in reinforcing the promotional and persuasive effec t, which when combined, shows aspects of literary creativity.\r\nThe next criterion proposed by Carter (1997), 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 surrounding text (perk’, ‘nippers’, ‘kiddies’ clobber’, ‘having a read at’) while Text 2, exploits the language typically associated with advertising which could be subtly redeployed for literary purposes. 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 Carter’s (1997) which can be seen in the following sentence in Text 2: ‘A Diamond is Forever’. These words as mentioned earlier put out the meaning that ‘a diamond is a symbol of eternal love’ and that ‘a diamond would ceaselessly remain valuable’.\r\nMoreover, the headline in Text 2, ‘How can you make two months’ salary last forever?’ is also polysemous, telling men that ‘they should invest their two months’ salary in buying 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 most valuable possession, its value will only increase with time’, hence they are an ideal investment for their money. Carter’s (1997) criterion of text patterning expatiates on Jakobson’s (1960) concept of parallelism, nevertheless, on a much broader textual scale. Texts get their meaning from their context and what meaning the writer desires to establish depends to a larger issue on the reader. By feeling at the structure of Text 1 and the way it is presented, one c an say that it was written for no distinct purpose other than to entertain, whereas, Text 1 has a definite pragmatic function, for it is written for a particular purpose which is to inform and persuade the reader to buy a diamond ring.\r\nSo 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 coherent communicative act, certain schemata of the reader must be activated to make sense of what they read by applying the text to significant and authoritative experiences. Text 1, activates the reader’s ‘married life’, ‘single life’ and ‘selfishness VS selflessness’ schema and as a result, judgments are made which go beyond the text. In Text 1, I interpret the pertinent reader (depending on the reader) schemata to be as follows: mitt: selfishness VS unselfishness of married and single people book of account: marriage is a n act of selflessness\r\n record: married life has the bliss of being a preserve and father Script: single people are inferior to married people\r\nScript: plosive single since marriage is a form of entrapment\r\nScript: married people are as selfish as singles\r\nIn Text 2, I interpret the relevant reader schemata (depending on the reader) as follows: Script: buy a diamond ring\r\n computer program: give a diamond ring\r\nPlan: show love and devotion\r\nPlan: impress the woman\r\nGoal: marry the woman\r\nOr\r\nScript: buy a diamond ring\r\nGoal: perfect investment for money since a diamond’s 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 said that, Text 1, ultimately results in schema reinforcement since it corroborates the stereotypical presumptions about people and the world. Text 2, also results in schema reinforcement since the advertisers assume that readers share and recognize their plans and are persuadable to the recommendation and will purchase a diamond ring. The analyses manifest how Jakobson’s and Carter’s methodology operates only at the linguistic level and not at the schematic and discoursal level. The literariness of both texts cannot be delineate in simple Stylistics, Carter’s or Jakobson’s approach. Only with reference to the reader’s distinct schemata, can one argue for their literariness or lack of it.\r\nIn conclusion, the analyses demonstrate the weaknesses of Stylistics, Jakobson’s and Carter’s inherency approach in isolation, highlighting the importance of the reader’s unique interpretative schemata. However, one should not cast aside Jakobson’s, Stylistics and inherency approach but rather addition them with the pivotal role of the reader. The significance of a reader to determine the lite rariness of a text was neglected by Jakobson, although, interestingly, his philosophy strongly 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 Carter’s 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 first literary texts, even if not poems, contain poetic elements’ (Thornborrow, 2006:65).\r\nHence, Text 1, with its few glimpses of linguistic patterning and deviation, may lock away be regarded as literary by many readers, whereas, Text 2, with its density of patterning and deviation will hardly be regarded as being literary only because it is classified as an advertisement. This, however, depends upon individual readers since point of views and approaches present in the texts will arouse particular judgments in particular readers. T hese 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 commit to recategorization as readers change for different readers will categorise a text differently.\r\nREFERENCES\r\nCarter, R (1997) in Goodman, S & O’Halloran, K. (2006) The art of incline: literary creativity, centripetal University, Milton Keynes, pp. 60-89 Carter, R (2004) Language and Creativity: The cunning of Common Talk, London, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 1-226. Cook, D. (1994) in in Goodman, S & O’Halloran, K. (2006) The art of incline: Literary creativity, kick in University, Milton Keynes, pp. 37-43, 396-413 DeBeers, (2004) ‘How Can You Make Two Months Salary stick up Forever’, [online], http://lessisabore.com/main_files/writing/04_diamond.html (Accessed on 2 April 2012) Grice, P. (1975) in Goodman, S & Oà ¢â‚¬â„¢Halloran, K. (2006) The art of English: Literary creativity, outdoors University, Milton Keynes Jakobson (1960) in Goodman, S & O’Halloran, K. (2006) The art of English: Literary creativity, Open 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 & O’Halloran, K. (2006) The art of English: Literary creativity, Open 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 cunning of Common Talk, London, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, p.47 Thornborrow, J. (2006) in Goodman, S & O’Halloran, K. (2006) The art of Eng lish: Literary creativity, Open University, Milton Keynes, pp.50-74 Widdowson, H. (2006) in Goodman, S & O’Halloran, K. (2006) The art of English: Literary creativity, Open University, Milton Keynes, pp. 30-37\r\n'