I’m not passing judgement either way, I’ve been pretty “meh” in general about the state of “writing analysis” as it is in high schools and college in the US, it’s a great idea, to learn how to pick apart sentences and learn the intent or possible meaning. However, it gets taken so far out into left field it can get into some truly hilarious “interpretations” of utterly ridiculous works of art. That said, I’m wondering if other places have the same sort of classes as a standard part of a person’s education.
That is, in their late high school (or equivalent)/early college years, do other languages focus on “analysis” classes the way we do? Do German students go to their school and muddle through a “German literature” class and analyze what the symbols are in chapter 5? Do Japanese people take “nihongo no bungaku” and tear apart the recurring themes in The Setting Sun? What about in the English speaking world? Do UK students generally have the same latter year focus in their required school years about tearing apart word meanings? Aussies? New Zealanders?
I’m also interested in places where the common tongue doesn’t have a standard orthography. I’m not sure if there are any places where it’s common to go through 10-15 years of school that have a non-written language, but if there are any, do they have any similar classes about interpreting speech, or analysis in a different language?
In Spanish we do, yes, although since I’ve never taken a class in English Lit I can’t really compare both.
Our classes are called “Lengua Española” in Spain unless you end up studying Linguistics in college. It covers grammar, spelling, sentence construction, literature analysis (fragments and whole works, prose and verse), history of literature in Spanish, etc.
But why do you think other countries (I assume we’re talking first-world countries here?) would not teach analysis of their own language?
Are we talking about “grammar analysis” - where a sentence is taken apart into verb, object, subject etc? - or “literature analysis” - where symbols and meanings and allusions in poetry and literature are analyzed?
Yes, we have both of that. Of course. What else would you teach in the native language classes all the way through school?
No, we just grunt with each other, we don’t even have proper languages. That’s why English spoken VERY LOUD will be understood by foreigners.
And since we don’t have proper literature on our own, since the only writer in the world is Shakespeare, we just wait till we learn English and read that. :rolleyes:
We don’t “muddle” through “a German literature” class. Our teachers take it serious to teach us literature. It’s of course not limited to German literature; in I think 10th grade we discussed the four great Russian writers (and I read Dostoyewskis Idiot for homework). Because European literature is part of mankind and has influenced each other, we are expected to have at least a passing knowledge of who the greatest authors are in the neighbour countries.
And if you don’t know what the symbols mean, or what the author alludes to, you miss a large part of a poem. If you don’t know the background of a novel or think about it, you miss a large part. Ideally, reading “High” literature gives you an insight, an epiphany into the human condition that applies to your own life and time though it was written in very different circumstances; and it also gives you a very vivid image what people at that time were like in their thinking and ideas and attitude, explaining historical development to a degree.
True, every teacher and every person who’s older than mid-20s will tell you that a bunch of 17- and 18year olds analyzing Goethe’s Faust in German class will only catch part of it, because they lack the life experience to fully feel all what Goethe tries to express (it’s not for nothing considered one of his greatest works ever). Nevertheless, an attempt is made to teach them how to understand it, and if 20 years later, they read it again, they can discover further levels and better experience it.
You do realize that this is outside first-world countries, do you? And that even in most 3rd world countries, learning to write is one of the most important parts of getting an education?
No, seriously, I could see that literature analysis of symbols may not be a big deal in some cultures, or that some languages may be considered to be more “literal” than others (within the culture) and not focused on, whether or not it’s actually true, the cultural perception can greatly affect the curriculum one’s school system uses.
I was asking if there was a cultural difference. I don’t think that learning the double meaning between words and phrases is bad or something only the great English speaking master race has, and I think most cultures will teach it to a degree, but I wasn’t sure if they took it as far as we do in the US, by analyzing allusions in poems, or possible turns of phrase. It seems like something that could legitimately differ in perception between cultures, with some cultures focusing less on it. I’m sure in almost every language you can major in something of the sort in college, I just wasn’t sure if it was part of the “standard package” so to speak, which may, in a given culture, take more of a turn towards linguistics or grammatical prescriptivism than symbolic analysis.
I know all languages have their great literature, but I wasn’t sure if some cultures considered it something to be read, enjoyed, and analyzed on your own time, rather than being encouraged to analyze, dissect, and read it in class.
I know this is outside first world countries, but the fact is, the majority of languages on the planet don’t have an orthographic system (or at least one known and used by the common person, since technically you could use IPA to represent the language). I didn’t know if there were any school systems that existed in a place with a language with no orthography, and if it did how they handled this sort of thing.
To add on what constanze has already written:
Yes, we did a lot of literature analysis in German class, as well as some linguistics. But that is also true for English class, beginning in year 9 or 10. We had English class starting in year 5 (now many start in year 3 if I am informed correctly). The first years was just learning the language and when there was a sound base set we practiced its usage by discussing English books we had to read. I hated that!
Nobody has ever become a great orator or writer without analyzing other people’s work - doing it completely on your own, withouth any basis, would be akin to trying to learn calculus without having studied arithmethic.
A lot of the analysis, at least in Spain, is done as homework rather than in the class itself, but like homework for math, you have been given the tools in class.
ETA: ah yes, we had some “discussing books” parts in our other languages too. No “English Lit” or “Latin Lit”, but we did analyze books for English and some short speeches for Latin (advanced students got to analyze full books in Latin and perform a critical translation of De Bello Gallico). And there was a Universal Lit for the Humanities folk in 12th grade, plus we’d mentioned and read fragments of some of those works as part of Spanish (because of their influence on our own writers), plus in those “analyze a book of your choice” assignments you didn’t have to pick one which was originally in Spanish - I did The Count of Montecristo once.
I don’t know how accurate his history is (and by all means analyze what he actually wrote, as opposed to my disjointed quotations) or how much it has to do with what high schools and colleges are doing now.
Maybe you could give some examples of cultures on this planet Earth that have both literature but not much interest in symbols and analysing them? Because I haven’t heard of them. Even cultures that have no written literature, but oral poems and myths, will have discussions about them, though not a in a school context.
You still come across as sounding like somebody who believes that
a) other languages aren’t really as proper and full as the English language which needs analyzing
b) other countries’ education system is far less advanced than the US one (which is esp. rich considering the sorry state the US schools are generally considered to be in)
c) analysing literature in general is some high-falutin make-work without practical use because if you read literature at home by yourself, you will understand everything perfectly, while in school literature is overanalyzed.
You’re wrong on all counts, most esp. on the last one: literature analysis is quite important whenver you have literature. As long as your refuse to believe that, you won’t understand the other points, either.
No, you’re still hung up on your wrong understanding of what literature analysis is for or what it consists of. It’s not overanalyzing one thing to the extent of something else; it’s meaning of words, symbolism, word usage, historical context, biographical context of the author, all together.
No human culture that I can think of that has literature will place less emphasis on understanding it by simply ignoring symbolism, changed meanings rhyme and meter and so on.
Some countries may not have the resources to equip their schools or educate their teachers for that because they first must teach all children to read and write before going to the next step; but that is a problem of speed and budget, not of less importance.
Enjoying literature is not the aim of school. Nothing is taught to be enjoyed (though it’s a nice benefit!), it’s taught to be understood and grasp the essentials so that latter education - either in trade or in university - can build on that. When discussing a novel, the chapters will be read at home, and the discussion will be in class.
To repeat, the idea that you sit at home and analyze a poem and understand all of it, at age 15, is absurd to anybody who knows the barest basics of literature. Ask any competent teacher, and he will groan at this naivity.
Any teacher would love it if they manage to awaken the love of literature in their pupils, and if they continue reading books and poems outside class, since the curriculum leaves space only for a fraction of important books. But the gulf you construct between “reading, enjoying and understanding in your spare time” vs. “over-analyzing, dissecting and discussion in class” makes you sound like a whiny 15-year old that “this stuff is hard, give us a break man” instead of an adult who understands why learning is necessary.
Um, what??? Do you mean because Arabic or Chinese doesn’t have a standardized transcription into English, they don’t have their own scripts to write in? What major used language, used in any functioning country on the world today, does not have a script?
Sure, if you count every language of some remote tribe in the rainforest in South America and Africa, you get a lot of languages with no official orthography - but the amount of speakers is very small; it’s not the official language of the country - therefore school lessions are held in Spanish/ Portugese/ English/ French/ Swahili.
Since this is a big topic, for well over a hundred years missionaries, trying to translate the Bible in the native language, have always developed dictionaries, and often an alphabet for recording the sounds if one didn’t exist previously. With the change in pedagogic approach away from left-over colonial, centralised curricula, towards an integrative approach where tribal children are taught in their native tongue in school first, and learn practical stuff, this, too will spread more.
The problem however is that the state of schools in 3rd world countries is still so far behind current pedagogic development and general infrastructure, that literature discussion is simply not the kind of topic that would be treated in normal school, only later. Not because of a cultural difference, but because of priorities.
The only culture that I can think of with schools, but no orthography, would be tribes in the rainforest where children go to a different kind of school - learning woodcraft like reading animal tracks, walking in the jungle without stepping on snakes and shooting your dinner. Even the Tuareg children learn not only reading tracks and signs of weather and walking for hours in the desert without tiring, but have their own writing system which is taught by writing in the sand.
One other point to consider: done correctly, literature analysis is not only applied to poems and belletristic, but to non-fiction texts, too, and is as such part of a larger lesson in critical thinking and analysis that is considered important and desirable in a modern democracy.
3 or 4 generations ago, children learned poems by rote to be considered educated. Or look at how the textbook in “Dead Poet Society” measures the “worth” of two different poets and their poems. That is not what literature or analysis should be.
Well, English sure doesn’t seem to have much of a consistent ortography… ok, ok, ok, I’ll stop with the potshots now!
But seriously, and putting my tongue firmly back where it belongs, languages which have started being written frequently in (relatively) recent years [which is what I’m guessing Jragon was thinking about when he talked about “non consistent ortography”] are likely to have had their Sequoia, their St Cyril: someone who bothered come up with a consistent phonetics-based ortography, something which English lacks but which is present in other European languages. English spelling is truly, sorely fucked up even without the dialect differentiations.
Look up Literature in Wikipedia. It’s a pretty broad category with links to sub-categories within Wikipedia & elsewhere.
Look on the left-hand side of the page, under* Languages*. There are many entries. I checked out a few Romantic & Germanic options, from which I can extract a bit of meaning. Hey, they’ve got a bunch of information tailored to their literature–not simply translated from the English. With links, too.
Of course other languages teach literature analysis!
I don’t take the OP’s question as seriously as [FONT=Trebuchet MS]constanze’s righteous indignation at the perceived slight. [/FONT]
I would be a little surprised if all countries went down the road of literature analysis as much as many US college courses do. Many (or most) of students feel it is a complete waste of time (sorry, no cite).
I mean, this is not the kind of stuff that builds bridges, makes widgets, and puts food on the table (unless you’re a literature prof).
Which only covers all of the “paper subjects” - so US colleges don’t teach any philosophy, history, theology, languages … at all?
You must also have skipped over my post where I explained that literature analysis is part of a larger part of analysis and logical, indepent thinking; just as philosophy starts with logical thinking, which is quite useful.
But if you are part of that class of people who can only see cash value in things and the worth in directly applicable research, then obviously you’re part of a culture that values both literature and literature analysis as very very little.
Sorry for you. Maybe if you’d grown up in another culture, where more emphasis is placed on non-material things and learning instead of parroting, maybe you would understand why it’s important. Sadly, the disease of “trying to become like Americans” is spreading, so more people over here value only material an direct-impact research, too. So maybe you’ll get your wish soon and that “waste of time” will be diminished on the curriculum to make more time for rote learning, because critical thinking and analysis is a hindrance to consumer drones.
Yea, actually I did kinda skip over your posts when it was obvious you started getting all bent out of shape over nothing.
Whoa there, I’d hate for you to validate the OP’s question. If you are implying there are cultures that value literature analysis very little, then maybe there might be countries that don’t teach it as much. That would validate the OP’s question!
You’re right, the sorrow is all mine. I was forced to take all those course in High School and College (aced them too). It’s pretty much never helped me a bit, but at least I feel more cultured.
Every culture has analysis of symbols, metaphor and narrative because every language is about symbols, metaphor and narrative. Humans are, on a fundamental level, a product of metaphor. It’s our only way of understanding and giving meaning to the world around us. Our very neurology is wired for it.
Look at myth. Even the oldest, most primitive myths are chock full of metaphor. People have been dealing in this currency for tens of thousands of years. It’s a laugh to think that US universities somehow invented this.
That said, approaches are different. I know foreign literature classes in China place heavy emphasis on the lifetime of the author and how the book fits into the historical context and literary cannon. But I believe their Chinese literary analysis can run even deeper than our own, since Chinese is an especially metaphor-driven language and has opportunities for wordplay more complex than our own.
Literature classes in Cameroon are approximately like you’d find here. Classes are held in French, so that gets around the fact that most people speak a primary language that is not written.
Areas with good education systems and unwritten languages are quickly standardizing their languages. In South Africa, for example, you may sit around writing your thesis in Setswana.
Yeah, an ignorant kid insulting other languages, cultures and education systems in one fell swoop is just peachy!
Are you not part of the American culture, which values literature and analysis very little, yet does it very extensivly, the very model which the OP holds up? How is that validation of the OP?
If you aced them despite not understanding their merit, then obviously they’re taught in the US at a very low level.
I don’t see any evidence for why you feel more cultured, though, given your sneer that it’s worthless. Not understanding the value of culture makes you maybe a snob, but it’s the opposite of cultured.
To me, this seems to imply that without being having been taught literary analysis at school, one can’t be a competent interpreter of texts, which I think is rather exaggerated. Surely it’s not impossible or even unlikely for someone to read literature and think about it and not coming up with nonsense even without doing a course on it. And maybe it won’t be perfect, but considering the entire debate about interpretation and whether there is a single correct interpretation, perfect understanding is a highly problematical notion.
I was reading the Cultured butter thread I started and had this page opened, caught this last post, and for a second I thought you were passionately discussing the superiority of culture–cultured butter, that is.