Comparism of an everyday text with a literary text Essay

Choose atomic number 53 every day and wiz literary schoolbookbook. Using at least dickens analytical techniques from E301, give way and compargon your two texts in terms of their creative thinking and literariness, drawing on material from twain p dodges of the module. In this paper I impart analyze and compare a literary text and an everyday text, in terms of their creative thinking and literariness. I chose Philip Larkins (1964) verse, selfs the man (see Appendix, textbook 1), as the literary text for summary beca put on it is not only smooth and pleasing to the eye and mind that it seems effortless to read and contain indoors geniuss self but besides because it arouses so many emotions which grants it rarified for analysis. In Selfs the man Larkin (1964), is being cynical towards relationships and through the satirization of conglutination he contrasts himself with a mythical other, Arnold, with a view of talking about who is more than selfish, claiming that mar ried people are as selfish as single ones, that is, for their admit comfort as well as fear that they depart be left alone for the rest of their lives, people jump into marriage. The everyday text that I have chosen to analyze and compare with the poem, is an publicizing by DEBEERS (see Appendix, text 2), targeting men, persuading them to debauch a rhomb aureole for their lady, since diamonds, just standardized marriage, are an investment.Diamonds are a symbol of eternal love and devotion and men are apprised of this symbolism, hence, DE BEERS exploits that in the advertisement by ingraining in the minds of men that if they want to stop a charr getting away (Larkin, 1964), they should lay down their two months profits last forever (DE BEERS, 2004). Although at first glance the two texts seem completely different, they are seemingly connected by the same theme of relationships, however, from two different contrasting contexts, with textual matter 1, being a poem by Phil ip Larkin (1964), and Text 2, being an advertisement by DE BEERS (2004). In order to evaluate the creativity and literariness of a text, a thorough analysis of the oral communication the generator has used is of supreme importance. 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 produce work that is both novel (i.e. Original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e. Adaptive concerning travail constraints).Furthermore, Swann (2006 7) asserts that creativity is not restricted to literary texts but is a common aspect of our executeions with others, which links nigh to Papens and Tustings (2006315) claimthat all meaning making processes have a creative component part. Hence, it john be said that creativity can be set in motion in all literacy practices, in the way that texts are constructed, read and interpreted. Creativity has textual, socio-cultural and c ognitive aspects (Carter, 2004) and in this paper both chosen texts will be analyzed in terms of all three. Literariness, on the other hand, is defined by the Russian Formalists as a sum of special linguistic and formal 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 rhyme, and other patterns of labored and repetition. Hence, literariness is to be perceived in terms of defamiliarization, as a series of deviations from ordinary language, in which our mapping ways of seeing and thinking are disrupted our perceptions freshened and our awareness of the piece heightened (Shklovsky, in Hawks, 199762).Cook (1994) asserts that literariness is found on the notion of schema disruption where the contributors 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 reviewers desire for it to happen. Therefore, who the reader is, how he processiones and perceives the text with distinct background knowledge and expectations, ultimately determines the literary value of a text. In my analysis, I will first apply Jakobsons (1960) methodology, stylistics approach and Carters (1997) criteria of literariness to the two texts and and so 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 overly 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 traditionalistic lineation, stanza divisions of poetry, and the presence of standard punctuation. The poem has 8 stanzas in all and each stanza consists of 4 lines. This creates a couch rhythmic pattern, particularly in conjunction with the rhyme scheme. Text 2, on the other hand, on a graphic level, uses full capitalization in order to emphasize every letter in the ad and make itlook trim and tidy. The headline uses larger, capital and bold letters to draw readers attention and make them curious about what the advertisement mainly has to say, leading them to continue on reading unconsciously by arousing their curiosity and desire to know more about the product and subsequently persuading them to deal it. Moreover, Text 2, illustrates graphological deviation, by using solid background colors, and a brilliant diamond ring to focus all the readers attention 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 half-rhyme in the tertiary (supper/paper) and 4th (houses/trousers mother/summer) stanzas. The use of rhyme creates an end stop, whereby the reader pauses slightly, emphasizing the talking to that rhyme. In Jakobsons methodology (1960), when phonemes rhyme in a text and/or alliteration is nonplus unneurotic with other sound effects of verse, it is at once both a deviation from the code and an infliction of order upon it (Cook, 1994396). 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-word headline also contains linguistic exploitation, in a way that highlights and depicts the nub which makes it an interesting 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 attention of the reader is traditionally supposed to be on the meaning instead than the sound, it is interesting to see how the headline, HOW CAN YOU MAKE TWO MONTHS SALARY LAST evermore? contains phonological p arallelism with an inline-rhyme (You/Two both words come 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 rather than poetic.Larkins (1964) deviation from Standard face by using colloquial lexis perk, nippers, kiddies thrash interests the reader and familiarizes them with the situation, which is effective in that it is easy to read if one can relate to the poet. Moreover, the constant use of the conjunction and, in the 2nd, tertiary and 7th stanzas highlights the bare, repetitive and boring lifestyle of Arnold which is reduced to mundane tasks. Text 2, on the other hand, exploits lexical ambiguity at the semantic level. Thus, the slogan A Diamond Is Forever, inwardness both that a diamond is a never-ending sign of love (that is, the diamond is not precisely seen as a rock but rather as a sign of eternal love, hence, the diamond, in Text 2, is made to produce love and co mes to mean love) and that a diamond would always determine its value.Additionally, affirmative and commendatory words and phrases (perfect, shell cherish, shell love, surprise her, diamond experts since 1888) are astray used in, Text 2, to impress the potential customer of the quality of the diamond ring, to form positive trope in their minds, win their trust and arouse their desire to buy it. Moreover, in Text 2, the use of support person addressee you tends to shorten the distance between the reader and the advertiser, making the advertisement more want a face-to-face conversation where the advertiser speaks to the readers in a tender tone, making sincere promises and honest passs. In so doing, the advertisement moves the reader to action since the reader tactual sensations he is being thought of and plays an important fictional character for the manufacturer. Hence, it can be said that, Text 2, has an obvious conative function, since it is supposed to address and influen ce the reader to buy a product, un resembling, Text 1, where the poetic function dominates, making it self-referential (Thornborrow, 2006).Turning to the grammatical 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 (But wait not too fast) and in form of person-to-person reference, that is, through the use of personal pronouns where Arnold is named at the beginning to introduce him as a topic and then onwards the pronouns he and his are employed anaphorically for subsequent reference , thither are only a hardly a(prenominal) 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 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 only communicate meaning but also emotions, is being cleverly used in Text 1. The diction of Selfs the man is accurate, vivid, expressive and chosen sagely by the poet. For instance, in the following sentence, She takes as her perk (L.6), the speediness and brusqueness of the verb takes insinuates a sense of forced snatching peradventure even before Arnold has counted his money. The noun perk promotes a negative view of women, suggesting that Arnolds wife is a metal(prenominal) digger who expects to be paid for being there.Moreover, Larkins use of the colloquial idiom, having a read at instead of re ad, insinuates Arnolds chronic fatigue, robbing him of the power of serious concentration. The phrase Put a stern 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 conviction at all (L12), for he has given his life to marriage. Through his diction, one can perceive the poets sarcastic and cynical tone in Text 1, portraying Arnold as being trapped, unhappy and un advantageful since he is enslaved, dominated and directed by his wife and children. The last stanza is an indecisive finishing statement that suggests that the poet has reached the proof that he has a superior strategy in playing the game 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 extensive use of get tense which demonstrates not only the positive features of the di amond 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 another aspect of the candid present in, Text 2, and that is its implication of universality and timelessness. Moreover, the use of interrogative sentences, in Text 2, such as, How often 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 generalopinion that both texts have a relatively high stratum of literariness. The first criterion 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 insu fficiency 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 intensity 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, confirmable 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 bound by cooperative conditions of conventional communication. It also relies on another medium, the handicraft of an image, to assist in reinforcing the promotional and persuasive effect, which when combined, shows aspects of literary creativity.The 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 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 blue-chip.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 increase 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 overmuch broader textual scale. Texts get their meaning from their context and what meaning the writer desires to establish depends to a larger tip on the reader. By looking 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 certain(prenominal) 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 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 authentic experiences. Text 1, activates the readers 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 relevant reader (depending on the reader) schemata to be as follows bridge player selfishness VS unselfishness of married and single people hired man marriage is an act of selflessnessScript married life has the bli ss of being a husband and father Script single people are inferior to married peopleScript stay single since marriage is a form of entrapmentScript married people are as selfish as hitIn Text 2, I interpret the relevant reader schemata (depending on the reader) as follows Script buy a diamond ringPlan 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 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 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, foreground 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 knowing 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 denseness 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 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 open to recategorization as r eaders change for different readers will categorize a text differently.REFERENCESCarter, R (1997) in Goodman, S & OHalloran, K. (2006) The art of English literary creativity, Open University, Milton Keynes, pp. 60-89 Carter, R (2004) phrase 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, 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 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 expression 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