Comparism of an everyday text with a literary text Essay

Choose one every day and one literary text editionbook. Using at least devil analytical techniques from E301, disassemble and compar office your deuce texts in wrong of their creative thinking and literariness, drawing on satisfying from both parts of the module. In this paper I forget analyze and comp ar a literary text and an everyday text, in terms of their creativity and literariness. I chose Philip Larkins (1964) verse, Selfs the homo (see Appendix, textbook 1), as the literary text for analytic thinking be exercise it is non exclusively glisten and pleasing to the eye and mind that it seems effortless to read and end in spite of appearance ones self but also beca drug ab subprogram it arouses so several(prenominal)(prenominal) emotions which influences it ideal for analysis. In Selfs the man Larkin (1964), is worldness cynical towards relationships and through the satirization of marriage he contrasts himself with a mythical opposite, Arnold, with a mess of talking ab extinct who is more selfish, claiming that married wad are as selfish as angiotensin converting enzyme ones, that is, for their own comfort as intumesce as fear that they will be left alone for the put down of their lives, people jump into marriage. The everyday text that I wear chosen to analyze and compare with the poem, is an advertizement by DEBEERS (see Appendix, text 2), targeting men, persuading them to taint a infield ring for their bird, since ball fields, just like marriage, are an investment.Diamonds are a symbol of eternal love and devotion and men are aware(p) of this symbolism, hence, DE BEERS exploits that in the advertisement by ingraining in the minds of men that if they desire to stop a woman getting away (Larkin, 1964), they should view their devil months pay last forever (DE BEERS, 2004). Although at branch glance the two texts seem completely several(predicate), they are seemingly connected by the equal theme of relationships, however, from two different contrasting contexts, with textual matter 1, being a poem by Philip Larkin (1964), and textbook 2, being an advertisement by DE BEERS (2004). In order to evaluate the creativity and literariness of a text, a thorough analysis of the language the generator has used is of supreme grandeur. However, before analyzing the texts, it is necessary to have a broad interpretation of creativity and literariness. According to Sternberg (19993), Creativity is the ability to maturate work that is both novel (i.e. Original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e. Adaptive concerning delegate constraints).Furthermore, Swann (2006 7) asserts that creativity is not restricted to literary texts but is a rough-cut aspect of our interactions with others, which links closely to Papens and Tustings (2006315) claimthat altogether meaning making processes have a creative element. Hence, it washstand be tell that creativity deal be put in whole literacy practices, in the w ay that texts are constructed, read and interpreted. Creativity has textual, socio-cultural and cognitive aspects (Carter, 2004) and in this paper both chosen texts will be analyse in terms of both three. Literariness, on the other hand, is defined by the Russian Formalists as a sum of special linguistic and nominal properties that could be located in literary texts (Maybin & Pearce, 20066). The Formalists elucidate the observable devices by which literary texts, especially poems, foreground their own language, in verse, and other patterns of aimheaded and repetition. Hence, literariness is to be encompassd in terms of defamiliarization, as a serial of passings from ordinary language, in which our routine ways of seeing and thinking are disrupted our perceptions freshened and our awareness of the world heightened (Shklovsky, in Hawks, 199762).Cook (1994) asserts that literariness is based on the notion of strategy disruption where the referees views and perspectives are challenged in some way. He proposes that literariness results when a text and linguistic deviation cause schema disruption, refreshment or even change, however, whether a text generates schema refreshment ultimately depends on the ratifiers desire for it to happen. Therefore, who the reader is, how he approaches and perceives the text with distinct setting knowledge and expectations, ultimately determines the literary value of a text. In my analysis, I will first exercise Jakobsons (1960) methodology, stylistics approach and Carters (1997) criteria of literariness to the two texts and then contrast them with illustrations in terms of interpretative schemata. My intention in doing so is to highlight some of the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches and also modes in which they interact to better comprehend the nature of creativity and literariness.On the graphological level, in text 1, the noticeable attributes are the traditional lineation, stanza divisions of poetry, and t he figurehead of standard punctuation. The poem has 8 stanzas in all and each stanza consists of 4 lines. This creates a set rhythmic pattern, finically in federation with the rime scheme. text edition 2, on the other hand, on a graphic level, uses broad capitalization in order to emphasize every letter in the ad and make itlook trim and tidy. The newspaper headline uses larger, capital and heroic letters to draw readers anxiety and make them curious about what the advertisement mainly has to say, leading them to continue on reading unconsciously by aro utilise their curiosity and desire to know more about the fruit and after persuading them to buy it. Moreover, Text 2, illustrates graphological deviation, by using solid background colors, and a brilliant diamond ring to focus all the readers tending to. On the phonic level, Text 1 has little irregularity.The rhyme scheme of the poem is AABB, CCDD, where lines 1 & 2 and 3 & 4, rhyme in every verse with an exception of hal f-rhyme in the 3rd (s upper berth/paper) and quaternary (houses/trousers spawn/summer) stanzas. The use of rhyme creates an end stop, whereby the reader pauses slightly, emphasizing the terminology that rhyme. In Jakobsons methodology (1960), when phonemes rhyme in a text and/or alliteration is present together with other sound effect of verse, it is at once both a deviation from the code and an duplicity of order upon it (Cook, 1994396). Presuming that rhyming of phonemes is unique, literary, and an attribute of text, it domiciliate be state that, Text 1, is both creative and literary. In Text 2, on the other hand, the nine-word headline also contains linguistic exploitation, in a way that highlights and depicts the message which makes it an kindle Carpe diem poem urging the reader to seize the day by making his two months salary last forever.Although, Text 2 is an advertisement and oversight of the reader is traditionally supposed to be on the meaning quite a than the soun d, it is interesting to see how the headline, HOW CAN YOU MAKE TWO MONTHS SALARY utmost FOREVER? contains phonological parallelism with an inline-rhyme (You/ cardinal both quarrel lessen from a paradigm of one syllable words containing the sound /u/) which as mentioned above makes it, both, creative and literary. The lexis in Text 1 is ordinary or else than poetic.Larkins (1964) deviation from Standard English by using colloquial lexis perk, nippers, kiddies clobber interests the reader and familiarizes them with the situation, which is effective in that it is prosperous to read if one can relate to the poet. Moreover, the constant use of the conjunction and, in the 2nd, 3rd and 7th stanzas highlights the bare, repetitive and boring livingstyle of Arnold which is cut down to mundane tasks. Text 2, on the other hand, exploits lexical ambiguity at the semantic level. Thus, the slogan A Diamond Is Forever,means both that a diamond is a never-ending sign of love (that is, the dia mond 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 always breastfeed its value.Additionally, affirmative and commendatory words and phrases (perfect, shell cherish, shell love, strike her, diamond experts since 1888) are widely used in, Text 2, to impress the say-so customer of the quality of the diamond ring, to form positive image in their minds, win their trust and arouse their desire to buy it. Moreover, in Text 2, the use of second person addressee you tends to shorten the distance between the reader and the advertiser, making the advertisement more like a face-to-face colloquy where the advertiser speaks to the readers in a tender tone, making sincere promises and undecomposed recommendations. In so doing, the advertisement moves the reader to action since the reader feels he is being thought of and plays an important part for the manufacturer. Hen ce, it can be said that, Text 2, has an obvious 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- denotative (Thornborrow, 2006).Turning to the grammatic characteristics of the texts, Text 1, just like its lexis, seems pointedly unpoetic. Apart from Shorts (1996) idea of cohesion which can be identified in the poem since it contains logical and clear links between sentences through the use of words such as and (And when he finishes supper), but ( merely 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 paper and then onwards the pronouns he and his are employed anaphorically for subsequent reference , there are further a few glimpses of patterning or poetic syntax.One grammatical deviance in Text 1 is found in line 18 (Makes me feel a swine), where the writers 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 nippersround thehouses(L.13) as well as picture 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 communicate meaning but also emotions, is being cleverly used in Text 1. The diction of Selfs the man is accurate, vivid, expressive and chosen wisely by the poet. For instance, in the pursual sentence, She takes as her perk (L.6), the speediness and brusqueness of the verb takes insinuates a sense of forced snatching perchance even before Arnold has counted his money. The noun perk promotes a negative view of women, suggesting that Arnolds wife is a gold digger who expects to be paid for being there.Moreover, Larki ns use of the colloquial idiom, having a read at instead of read, insinuates Arnolds chronic fatigue, robbing him of the power of serious concentration. The phrase consecrate 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 time at all (L12), for he has given his life to marriage. Through his diction, one can perceive the poets sar jogic and cynical tone in Text 1, portray Arnold as being trapped, unhappy and unfulfilled since he is enslaved, dominated and tell by his wife and children. The last stanza is an indecisive finishing statement that shows that the poet has reached the closing curtain that he has a superior strategy in playing the high of life, however, by saying Or I suppose I can in Line 32, he lets the readers interpret and decide for themselves who is more selfish.On the other hand, the grammatical style marker of significance in, Text 2, is the across-the-board use of pr esent tense which demonstrates not only the positive features of the diamond ring, satisfying the consumers desire to know the present state of the product he wants but also makes the advertisement easier to comprehend without transferring to other tenses. But there is some other aspect of the unproblematic present in, Text 2, and that is its logical implication of universality and timelessness. Moreover, the use of interrogative sentences, in Text 2, such as, How lots will you give her something shell cherish for the rest of her life? and How can you make two months salary last forever? arouses the readers attention since they are, both, captivating and thought provoking.Carters (1997) criteria of literariness, assists in confirming the general judging that both texts have a relatively high degree of literariness. The first banner of Carter (1997) which is evident in, Text 1, is medium dependence. Selfs the man creates a world of internal reference where the readers attention is ultimately drawn into the text itself (Maybin & Pearce, 200616). Perceptibly, a lack of direct referential communication exists with the readers 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 readers expectations and emotions into turmoil, making them feel insecure thus adding persuasiveness to the meaning of the text (Carter, 199767).However, he elucidates that no text can be so entirely autonomous that it refers only to itself nor so rich that a readers own experiencecannot extend the world it creates (Carter, 199782) which relates to Widdowsons (197536) theory that literary interpretationis 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 witho ut reparation the meaning. Moreover, Text 2, communicates with the reader in such a way that he/she is bound 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 effect, which when combined, shows aspects of literary creativity.The attached 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) musical composition 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. Polyse my, the use of words or phrases that have more than one meaning, is another criterion of Carters (1997) which can be seen in the following sentence in Text 2 A Diamond is Forever. These words as mentioned earlier carry the meaning that a diamondis a symbol of eternal love and that a diamond would always remain valuable.Moreover, 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 step-up with time, hence they are an ideal investment for their money. Carters (1997) criterion of text patterning expatiates on Jakobsons (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 l arger extent on the reader. By feel at the structure of Text 1 and the way it is presented, one can 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.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 dour communicative act, certain schemata of the reader must be activated to make sense of what they read by applying the text to significant and authentic experiences. Text 1, activates the readers married life, single life and selfishness VS self-sacrifice schema and as a result, judgments are made which go beyond the text. In Text 1, I interpret the relevant reader (depending on the reader) schemata to be as follows hired hand selfishness VS unselfishness of married and single people hired hand marriage is an act of selflessnessScript married life has the bliss of being a husband and father Script single people are inferior to married peopleScript stick about 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 formulate give a diamond ringPlan show love and devotionPlan impress the womanGoal marry 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 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 adve rtisers assume that readers share and recognize their plans and are persuasible 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 schematic 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 argue 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 aside Jakobsons, Stylistics and inherency approach but rather supplement 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 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 Carters inherency focus, on the other hand, are only beneficial in showing that there are no subtile cut-offs between literary and non-literary texts and that prototypical literary texts, even if not poems, contain poetic elements (Thornborrow, 200665).Hence, Text 1, with its few glimpses of linguistic patterning and deviation, may still 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 individualreaders since point of views and approaches present in the texts will arouse particular judgments in particular readers. These judgments will differ correspond to the schemata of the reader, and the extent to which their valued expectations and emotions a re thrown into turmoil. Moreover, it can be said that both texts are wide open 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 English literary creativity, on the fence(p) University, Milton Keynes, pp. 60-89 Carter, R (2004) talking to and Creativity The Art of Common Talk, London, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 1-226. Cook, D. (1994) in in Goodman, S & OHalloran, K. (2006) The art of English Literary creativity, Open University, Milton Keynes, pp. 37-43, 396-413 DeBeers, (2004) How Can You Make Two Months Salary Last Forever, online, http//lessisabore.com/main_files/writing/04_diamond.html (Accessed on 2 April 2012) Grice, P. (1975) in Goodman, S & OHalloran, K. (2006) The art of English Literary creativity, Open University, Milton Keynes Jakobson (1960) in Goodman, S & OHalloran, K. (2006) The art of English Literary creativity, Open University, Mi lton 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 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 Art of Common Talk, London, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, p.47 Thornborrow, J. (2006) in Goodman, S & OHalloran, K. (2006) 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